May a limited hand deny a control?

[Fluffy]

[hv=pc=n&w=sj72hakj5dak94cj3&e=sakt5ht98632dqck7&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1h(11-15)2c3d(limit%20raise%20or%20better)p3s(cuebid)p4d(control)p4s(control%2C%20implies%20club%20control)p4np5c(1)p5d(do%20you%20have%20%21hQ%3F)p5h(nopes)ppp]266|200[/hv]

 

In this hand after some cuebidding we went to blackwood, West had the 9th unbid trump, but he was't prepared to go to slam himself as he is afraid of slam depending on something else than ♥Q alone, a third round of spades for example.

 

East had king of the same problem, he has a 9th trump, but he is not prepared to play slam off an ace and ♥Q missing since he is also worried of a club ruff, or no pitches and having to ose ♣AQ in the end. So the slam won't solely depend on ♥Q so its not a good one.

 

The sum of both decisions missed a good slam though. I asked the hand to Lantaron and he said 3♠ was already an overbid. When I later told him what to do over 4♦ he said he would bid 4♥ as partner will bid again if all he needs is really a club control. For me this is wrong, partner has denied a club control and thus, he is asking us to show it if we have one. But I wonder what others think, so here is the poll.

[wank]

basically i agree with your chum (except about 3s): failing to cue and denying a control are not the same thing imo. you have to be able to show a pile of crap at some point otherwise you'll get too high when you've got controls and no tricks.

 

there's enough of a difference between 10 and 15 for this still to be necessary in a strong club system.

 

i think this is a very difficult slam to bid though. neither player has enough to push on past 4 imo. once east did though, west has to bid slam.

[whereagles]

The mixture of control bids with the need to say "I have a lousy hand" is one of the drawbacks of a simple cue-bidding approach.

 

The issue is known, and theoreticians invented conventions like serious/frivolous 3NT or "last train to clarksville" to try and mitigate it. Serious/frivolous is simple, but you don't always have the luxury to use it. LTTC is quite complex and will probably never be used outside expert circles. I'm trying to find a middle-of-the-road approach but it's still work in progress.

[Fluffy]

3 spades is not a courtesy cuebid, it already shows a good slam ambitious hand, 4♥ was the recomended action for Lantaron. So the hand is well delimited in a 13+-15 context

[whereagles]

The 10 card fit is the key... I don't think either player could have found out about it. Bidding slam in context requires a taking a rosy view.

 

Note that opener might be weary of his club king. And responder may rightly fear Qxx offside - quite possible after the overcall.

[dake50]

The mixture of control bids with the need to say "I have a lousy hand" is one of the drawbacks of a simple cue-bidding approach.

 

The issue is known, and theoreticians invented conventions like serious/frivolous 3NT or "last train to clarksville" to try and mitigate it. Serious/frivolous is simple, but you don't always have the luxury to use it. LTTC is quite complex and will probably never be used outside expert circles. I'm trying to find a middle-of-the-road approach but it's still work in progress. -- whereagles

.

*** The mis-mixture of min/max rebids with slam tries is one of the drawbacks.

That mixture obfuscates both partner's intent.

Is partner looking up OR just-in-case I'm looking up???

[aguahombre]

I suppose if you have agreed to use "Optional" Minorwood or Kickback where first step shows unwillingness to cooperate, the absolute "NO" in the poll would turn into the second choice.

 

Otherwise, when Partner has taken over, we don't get to be frightened by our own previous actions and further destroy trust by lying. So, my first paragraph does not apply to the given hand.

 

Here, East should be frightened by his previous bids, but has to lump it. West only knows about nine trumps, but certainly his 3D gadget, when 3C was available, must carry the inference of 4-card support and Opener knows of the 10-fit. Show the heart Queen and spade king....having already (according to the yellow stuff) shown the second round club control and the number of prime keys for hearts.

[kenrexford]

This is the type of question that is typically impossible to intelligently answer. Moreover, responses to the question are likely unreliable. As an example, people tend to answer based upon their own understanding of cuebidding principles with which they have agreed in different sequences and then try to extrapolate. The only people who should have an opinion are those who play a limited opening, who play 3♦ as a 3+ support limit+ unlimited call, who I think cue generally Italian style (first or second round), and who do not use LTTC or Serious/Nonserious of some variety. Once you have that limited group, you next get into philosophy and partnership agreements, as I doubt there is a recognized "standard" for that specific subgroup. On top of this, it seems like you have to then weigh theory as to what one does after initially overbidding, if 3♠ was wrong.

 

That's way too much to analyze.

 

The problem with the post is that it suggests that the answer will be universal. It is not. Hence, it is impossible to answer this question definitively.

[jogs]

♠ AKQ10

♥ Q109862

♦ Q

♣ 72

 

How would you bid this hand? Couldn't see how West knew there was a club control.

[PhantomSac]

♠ AKQ10

♥ Q109862

♦ Q

♣ 72

 

How would you bid this hand? Couldn't see how West knew there was a club control.

 

You would sign off over 4H as you know you are off the cashing AK of clubs.

[aguahombre]

♠ AKQ10

♥ Q109862

♦ Q

♣ 72

 

How would you bid this hand? Couldn't see how West knew there was a club control.

The Yellow part of the diagram says a club control was implied with the Spade cue because West had denied a Club control.

[jogs]

4♠ 'implies' a club control. Have never played this style. I understand shows a control and denies a control. What does 'imply' mean?

[gszes]

This hand is merely a simple case of 6 not being bid

primarily because the 10 card trump fit is never

discovered (I am assuming ---probably incorrectly--

that the limit raise is 3+ support).

 

A simple bid of 3n over 3s showing extra trump length

would have solved this problem since east could then

show the trump Q knowing the partnership had 10+ hearts.

 

There are other uses for 3n aside from showing extra length

but length is quite a significant factor when it comes to

counting tricks and worries about trump quality (serious/frivolous

3N isnt quite so useful to an already limited opening bid and

dont get me started on 3n = to play).

 

Answering the TITLED question (which i do not feel applies to

the hand presented). A cue bid should only be denied when the

limited hand range is huge (over 6 points) and the responder

has little to nothing more than the control they are denying--

 

lho opens 2h partner x (no moe opp bidding) and you hold

xxxx Kxx xxx xxx You dutifully bid 2s and partner now bids

4c (splinter). Your 2s bid showed a hand with 0-7 or maybe

even a crummy 8 count this is a huge range and your only

redeeming value is your 2nd round heart control. If p only needed

a heart control for slam they could have proceeded in almost any

other way but this splinter here is also a form of invite wondering

if you are near the top of your hand or not. You are not so it would

be correct under circumstances like these to merely bid 4s.

[PhantomSac]

4♠ 'implies' a club control. Have never played this style. I understand shows a control and denies a control. What does 'imply' mean?

 

I'm pretty sure Fluffy meant it shows one implicitly. He is not a native speaker. Obviously it shows one because his partner has denied one, if he also did not have one he would not make a slam try since he would know they are off 2 club tricks.

[aguahombre]

4♠ 'implies' a club control. Have never played this style. I understand shows a control and denies a control. What does 'imply' mean?

O.K., let's try it this way:

 

1)Partner has denied a club control with the 4D bid..their conditions, maybe not yours. ***

 

2)If you didn't have a club control either, you would not bypass game in hearts.

 

3)Therefore, when you bypass game in hearts, you "imply" a club control.

 

***This is a circular "imply", here. We are taking what the OP says as the truth --a good idea when responding to a thread. If 4D did not "imply" lack of a Club control, then 4S would not "imply" a Club control.

[kenrexford]

On the question of "implies" versus "shows," this is a more interesting discussion, perhaps, than is obvious.

 

The semantics themselves are somewhat a matter of choice, as a control that is implied is normally there just as much as if it was shown. Normally, an implication arises from a necessary conclusion. As mentioned, the implication is solid if the prior 4♦ absolutely denied a club control.

 

If, in contrast, all cues are flexible judgment calls, where 4♦ implies but does not deny a club control, then 4♠ logically could also imply but not deny a club control. This seems like bad bridge, because both sides could imply but not deny a control and then go for a two-trick set in the slam.

 

Another completely different possibility in explaining the nuance, however, as to 4♠ "implying" or "showing" a club control is tied to the status of the spade control. If 4♠ is a true re-cue, then one could say that 4♠ definitionally "shows" a spade feature (beyond that already shown) but necessarily "implies" the club control. In contrast, 4♠ might say nothing about spades, being instead a surrogate for "showing" a club control more efficiently.

 

A perhaps better example would be if spades were trumps and the last cue 4♥. Say, 1♠-P-3♠-P-3NT(please cue)-P-4♦-P-4♥. In this sequence, 4♥ in most partnerships "shows" a club control but says nothing about hearts. It "shows" a club control, rather than "implying" a club control, because there is nothing said about hearts. Had 4♥ "shown" a heart control, then the club control would be "implied."

 

In the actual auction presented, it seemed to me that 4♠ would not be a classic cuebid of spades, implying control of clubs. Rather, it would be a club cuebid made below 4NT, showing a club control but saying nothing more about spades. As opposed to "Last Train," the 4♠ cue would be as a friend described "Train Has Left the Building," a generic invitational cue of the club suit expressing that all suits are controlled but either not enough use RKCB effectively (suggesting a possible 5♥ signoff) or, in some partnerships, a desire to answer rather than ask.

 

 

[jogs]

 

Another completely different possibility in explaining the nuance, however, as to 4♠ "implying" or "showing" a club control is tied to the status of the spade control. If 4♠ is a true re-cue, then one could say that 4♠ definitionally "shows" a spade feature (beyond that already shown) but necessarily "implies" the club control. In contrast, 4♠ might say nothing about spades, being instead a surrogate for "showing" a club control more efficiently.

 

 

Since this hand has both an extra spade feature and a club control, it must be correct to show the 6th heart, right???

[gnasher]

I'm pretty sure Fluffy meant it shows one implicitly. He is not a native speaker.

Fluffy's English was quite correct anyway. The 4♠ bid showed a spade control, but as a logical consequence of the auction must also have a club control. There is an English word which describes this relationship precisely, and that word is "implies".

[helene_t]

Fluffy's English was quite correct anyway. The 4♠ bid showed a spade control, but as a logical consequence of the auction must also have a club control. There is an English word which describes this relationship precisely, and that word is "implies".

Yes but it has become so viral to use the word "imply" when one really means "suggest", that it is often understood that way.

[rhm]

And how do you bid:

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sj72hakj5dak94cj3&e=sak65hqt9863d5ck7]266|100[/hv]

 

East will attach more value to this hand in the auction than to the one actually held, at least I would.

 

Assign the blame for reaching a poor slam

Of course East can not take any blame since all his bids were "mandatory" and his 1♥ opening limited him.

The notion "Do your control bids as requested and the right contract wii be reached" is a bit naive.

It does a reasonable job telling you whether the required controls are present. It does not follow you have 12 tricks.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[quiddity]

Seems like 3♠ from a limited opener should guarantee a suit, not just a control. Opener's points are limited but he can have a range of shapes so IMO it's consistent to first bid 3♠ showing shape and later bid 4♥ even with a club control to say your shape isn't that exciting.

[kenrexford]

If you don't play serious and lttc with a limit plus response and no space, then you just about have to be natural, whether suits, shortness, or both via relay. I agree.

[jogs]

And how do you bid:

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sj72hakj5dak94cj3&e=sak65hqt9863d5ck7]266|100[/hv]

 

East will attach more value to this hand in the auction than to the one actually held, at least I would.

 

Assign the blame for reaching a poor slam

Of course East can not take any blame since all his bids were "mandatory" and his 1♥ opening limited him.

The notion "Do your control bids as requested and the right contract wii be reached" is a bit naive.

It does a reasonable job telling you whether the required controls are present. It does not follow you have 12 tricks.

 

Rainer Herrmann

There are many more joint partnership hand patterns than bidding sequences available to describe them. Not convinced we need to assign fault for every poor result. It does seem like too few articles are written on negative features. Jxx(or worst) in a side suit is not conducive to manufacturing tricks. There is no easy way to identify critical jacks and tens.

This board contains two suits which have negative features. Jxx in spades is a negative known to West. AKxx opposite x in diamonds is duplication of values. This duplication is not known to either partner during the auction. If the ♦K were replaced by the ♠Q(♠QJx and ♦Axxx), 6♥ would be nearly unbeatable.

[phil_20686]

It seems like this problem would have been easier if you had a way to explicitly show a four card raise. Obviously I don't know your system, but it seems like that is where the auction ran into problems, as nobody knew if the heart Q is important. If it had started off 1h 2c 2N showing 4+ hearts limit + you would have been better placed.

[Zelandakh]

As has been pointed out the two solutions are to split raises by 3 card versus 4+ and for 3♠ to show a hand good enough for game but enough to push for slam (Frivolous). Responder can then ask for controls where they need them via 3NT(for ♠) or 4m. Even with both of these in place you are still only getting some of the way there to being able to bid this one with confidence.