Control-Showing hands

[PhantomSac]

It's not rocket science guys, if one hand denies a control in a suit and the other hand makes any non signoff, they have a control in the suit their partner has denied one in! That is just bridge logic, don't continue to try for slam knowing you're off 2 losers in one suit.

[Trick13]

We use this logic together with 3NT specifically denying a ♣ control which can lead to nice inferences.

 

Here our bidding would be

1♦ 1♥* (spades)

3♠ 3NT* (no clubs)

4♠

 

But if it went

1♦ 1♥* (spades)

3♠ 3NT* (no clubs)

4♥ then the 4♥ must show a ♣ control (you would sign-off), and a ♦ control (or you would bid 4♣), and a ♥ control (or you would bid 4♦).

[fromageGB]

But if it went

1♦ 1♥* (spades)

3♠ 3NT* (no clubs)

4♥ then the 4♥ must show a ♣ control (you would sign-off), and a ♦ control (or you would bid 4♣), and a ♥ control (or you would bid 4♦).

One-under denial cue bids in its pure form. Works well.

[Zelandakh]

The real advantage of denial cues is the ability to use them as Asking Bids with a hand that is willing to take control later. The one-under DCB method is basically using 4♥ as Last Train. You can achieve the same effect by using Frivolous 3NT and normal Asking Bids without revealing the control situation when neither hand has serious slam interest.

[fromageGB]

The one-under DCB method is basically using 4♥ as Last Train. You can achieve the same effect by using Frivolous 3NT and normal Asking Bids without revealing the control situation when neither hand has serious slam interest.

I hate to disagree with you, but I think the first sentence is wrong. My understanding of last train is that its use neither denies nor shows that control, whereas the one-under denial definitely shows it. I see last train as useful in a situation where you do not want to or have not had the room to explore all the controls, sort of a serious NT at a higher level.

 

When you do have room, then the real advantage of one-under denial in the suit beneath trumps is a way of showing control without implying additional strength. You can still be a minimum for your pre-cue bidding. This in turn allows the partnership the use of cue bids in a co-operative slam try, where the initial cue bidder may be willing to go slam only if partner has a few extras that he has not been able to show yet. With this agreement, if partner is in this position of making the final cue and has that control, he can make it when minimum, allowing you to ace ask (or show aces) if super strong, but sign off if not. If he has it and has some extra value, he will respond with aces or ask himself. Conversely, if you (the initial cue bidder) are in the position of making the final one-under and have that control, you have the option of asking/telling aces when unilaterally asking, but making the final one-under to show it as as a co-operative suggestion confirming all controls.

 

Whether or not you view the benefits of discovering controls as more important than giving away information is a separate matter.

 

I do agree with the last sentence, and when partner is unlimited, 3NT as non-serious is arguably a better use of the bid. However, if partner has limited his hand, non-serious is no use to anyone, and one-under denial 3NT comes into its own.

[Zelandakh]

It denies it unless you are willing to bid on again over 4M. If you prefer to say that the Frivolous/Serious is moved from 3M+1 to 4M-1 I have nothing against it. The point is this - you have 4 pieces of information to convey, the 3 controls and slam suitability. And yes, I think the latter is important even opposite a limited partner. We can find out if we are in the slam zone first, then check controls or we can check controls and then whether we want to continue past 4M. In theory we could stick the slam try in the middle too, as is effectively the case for S/F3NT when hearts are agreed.

 

If it makes it easier let me take the example that Trick gave. He wrote that 3NT denies a club control. I say that that is not the case - it denies a club control only if we are not willing to move past 4♠. It might be that we have a hand worth taking control with but just wanted to ask about a club control on the way. This is what I meant about DCBs becoming Asking Bids. Using the range first in this example, if Responder has only a slam try then they bid 4♠ over his 4♥. In a pure DCB method they would have bid 3NT over 3♠ to show a slam try and Opener would simply bid 4♠ - no serious slam interest so no need to show controls. If instead Responder has serious interest then they presumably continue over Trick's 4♥, mostly with RKCB. Here in DCBs Responder would have made a serious Asking bid with 4♣ and now Opener knows it is safe to move beyond 4♠ with controls in the other suits. It is the same thing! just in a different order.

 

The funny thing is I have a feeling of deja vu about this conversation. I swear we have been through the exact same thing before!