3046 oh boy

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&n=skq2hdak85cakt654]133|100[/hv]

 

What's your plan?

[Douglas43]

Open 1♣ and reverse into Diamonds.

[LBengtsson]

Open 1♣ and reverse into Diamonds.

 

That is the easy bit. I have a feeling we have a jillybean bridge movie coming up :) (Having a complete guess here, it is not partner who bids his longest suit ♥ here and we have an uninterrupted auction, but the opps. throw in heavy interference in ♥ into your bidding machine. So, we may not even get to reverse with 2♦.)

[pescetom]

That is the easy bit. I have a feeling we have a jillybean bridge movie coming up :) (Having a complete guess here, it is not partner who bids his longest suit ♥ here and we have an uninterrupted auction, but the opps. throw in heavy interference in ♥ into your bidding machine. So, we may not even get to reverse with 2♦.)

If the opponents throw in hearts we should be able to show our contempt and progress in one of the black suits, without bothering diamonds. But hold onto your seat and order some popcorn :)

[jillybean]

That is the easy bit. I have a feeling we have a jillybean bridge movie coming up :) (Having a complete guess here, it is not partner who bids his longest suit ♥ here and we have an uninterrupted auction, but the opps. throw in heavy interference in ♥ into your bidding machine. So, we may not even get to reverse with 2♦.)

 

Much simpler than that!

 

[hv=pc=n&n=skq2hdak86cakt654&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1dp?]133|200[/hv]

 

Partner would have bypassed a 4 card ♦ suit to bid a 4 card major.

[DavidKok]

2♥ or 3♥, depending on which one is a splinter. 4♣ (good club suit with 4-card diamond support) would also work but is not as common an agreement, and also doesn't help partner distinguish between the spade ace and the heart ace. Some might play 4♥ Exclusion here.

 

Also since 1♦ denies four hearts (maybe only if partner is below a certain strength/length requirement?) the opponents have at least 10 between the two of them. Awfully generous of them to stay silent.

[jillybean]

Partner may have 4 hearts but if so, he has longer diamonds.

The opps are very reserved, this was at a bidding table with no opposition bidding so unfortunately, EW will pass throughout.

[pescetom]

3♥ splinter, as DavidKok says, praying to hear 3♠ next (after which it's going to be a stuttering auction to get down to ♦Q and maybe third round clubs control).

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&n=skq2hdak86cakt654&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1dp3hp3sp?]133|200[/hv]

[DavidKok]

If you have agreements that 3NT is artificial on this auction then that might be the right bid (for me it shows a spade honour, for others it might be Non-Serious or Serious). But with minor suit auctions 3NT is usually to play, so let's bypass it and bid 4♣. I am worried that partner might have something like ♠x, ♥Axxx, ♦Qxxxx, ♣xxx (or swap a heart for a diamond if you would respond 1♥ with that - I would), where 6♦ is fine (play two rounds of spades pitching a club, ruff out the club suit, draw trumps at some point) but we might have an issue trying for 7. That's the price I pay for not playing Exclusion.

[LBengtsson]

I guess after 4♣, partner bids 4♦, and then I bid 4♥ - that must show a void now imo. partner bids RKCB, you respond 5♦ (1430), partner then asks for extras with 5NT, you bid 6♣ and then partner must decide where the final contract lie.

 

I do not agree usually with the weak hand being the boss in the auction and bidding RKCB in an auction, but you have described your hand so its now up to partner to decide where the final contract is.

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&n=skq2hdak86cakt654&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1dp3hp3sp4cp4sp]133|200[/hv]

 

Over 4♣ you are going to get a 4♠ response. (corrected)

 

I see the key to this hand is the splinter, which we didn't have.

[DavidKok]

It's an interesting question exactly what 4♦ would show over 4♣, and what bypassing it shows instead.

 

At the table I would need some time to think when 4♥ comes back to me (Edit: see final paragraph for the corrected auction). Clearly a lot of points are riding on the next few rounds of bidding, and the auction thus far is completely consistent with my 'trap hand' example where we should settle for 6♦, but we might also have a cold 13 tricks opposite a slightly different hand. Some possible bidding plans include:

 

Bid 4NT (RKC Blackwood), where we will know what to do if partner shows 0 or 2, and with 1 we will just have to settle for 6♦ (I make it a habit not to gamble that partner's ace is the vital one).

Bid 4♠ (control), hoping partner can bid 4NT and we get to show our hand (for me: 6♦, an odd number of keycards with a void - unfortunately partner won't know about our good king of clubs). If partner bids 5♦ (weak) or 5♣ (last train) we can bid on, either with 5♥ (must show a void) or just blasting 6 opposite a signoff.

Jump to 5♥ now - either Exclusion (a bit late) or void-showing with a super positive. I think this is a fine plan since we are always going to at least 6 and we are not that interested in asking for key cards anyway. Partner will know how to value the ace of spades and queen of clubs, but might be discouraged by the lack of diamond AK. If skipping 4♦ denied those two cards that should not be an issue though.

 

I don't have an agreement about the difference between the immediate 5♥ or a delayed 5♥ after bidding 4♠. Partner showing a heart control should lower our expectations (speaking of: do you have an agreement that this shows an ace opposite a splinter? There is not much point showing a king) - the 'perfect minimum' for 7♦ now looks something like ♠Ax, ♥Kxx, ♦Qxxxx, ♣xxx and on a bad trump split that's not even all that easy. I think partner should be able to make a positive noise with most hands that give us chances in 7♦, so I am a fan of bidding 4♠ now. As an additional bonus since we've splintered earlier partner will know that this control bid is based on values, which will allow partner to judge that their 3♠ control is golden if based on an honour and lousy if based on shortness.

 

 

Edit: never mind, I wrote all of that before seeing the 4♠ bid (instead of 4♥). That is great news and should promise the ace, though I'm not scared of a void either. I want to find out about the minor suit queens, and one way to do it is by bidding 4NT, then when 5♣ (1/4) gets back to us bid 5♥ asking for the queen, and when 5NT (queen, no kings) gets back to us bid 6♣ (asking for general extras). Alternatively we can jump to 6♣, asking for club support, but it is unclear that we are looking for the queen and not the king. Lastly there's still the option of bidding 5♥ (or even 5♠), telling partner we've got all the key cards and want something extra. I think I will stick with Blackwood, but the other routes should work too if partner is alert.

If partner is holding something like ♠Ax, ♥xxx, ♦xxxxxx, ♣xx 13 tricks are cold and I'm not sure how to find it, though partner should show the queen with a 10-card fit, and might be able to judge that the doubleton in clubs (the king has already been denied so that's not an issue) is enough 'extras' on the 6-level, so the RKC plan might still work.

[jillybean]

This really shows more huge holes in our bidding, apart from not having a splinter available, we do not cue bid anything if partner has shown shortness there, hence the ♥ bid removed. I see that we should cue if we have an Ace in partners shortage. , 4♠ here can be A,K,s,v which again makes no sense, we must only show 1st round control.

 

This is how the auction should have gone

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s4ha963dqt543cq92&n=skq2hdak86cakt654&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1dp3hp3sp4cp4hp]266|200[/hv]

[DavidKok]

I would have bid 4♠ over 4♥, and I think the South hand is perfect for 4NT Blackwood next round, putting us in a comfortable 6♦ shortly after. 6NT is a favourite to make (a heart, five diamonds and six clubs) but partner doesn't know about our sixth club so I don't think we can get there on the auction - even my void-showing response of 6♦ to 4NT is still compatible with a 4=0=4=5 hand. Now let us hope clubs aren't 4-0, or if they are that we get a Lightner double so we can run.

[pescetom]

Once I hear 3♠ nothing much is likely to go wrong using Italian methods. I would continue 4♣ hearing 4♥, then 4♠ hearing 5♦. That warns me she has only 1 keycard which must be ♥A, so we are losing a spade after all: it would take two rounds to discover both minor queens, so better to not risk 6NT and just sign off in 6♦.

 

Note that what is often touted as a major drawback of these methods - control-bidding a King opposite a singleton - caused no problems in practice. The real downside of our auction is that we will always get a spades lead from attentive opponents, whereas less precise methods might gain an overtrick.

[thepossum]

That's a 2C for me every day. Who knows where we end up

 

 

Just saw the hands. 6NT perhaps with a bit of luck - EDIT we found 6C with me bidding North and being pushy :(

[jillybean]

That's a 2C for me every day. Who knows where we end up

 

 

Just saw the hands. 6NT perhaps with a bit of luck

 

That's what we wondered, but I think 2♣ on this hand is just a filler for the holes in our system, and would introduce new problems.

This is a new partnership and we have a lot of things to work through.

[thepossum]

I have a rather simple and direct approach to bidding

Often it works, if it doesn't you move on to the next hand

[jillybean]

I'm putting some notes together to help agree on our cue bidding, what have I missed?

 

Italian style cue bids

 

1st round (Ace, void) and 2nd round (K, singleton) cues

 

If the first cue is above game level, we show a 1st round control.

A cue in partners known shortness is an Ace

A second cue of a suit confirms 1st round control, either in a natural cue sequence or after an apparent game try sequence.

(first example is true as the cue is also above game, should it necessarily show first round if it is below game as in the second example?)

1♥:2♥

3♣*:4♥

5♣*

 

1♥:2♥

3♣*:3♥

4♣*

 

3♣ ostensibly a game try, 4♣, 5♣ 1st round cue asking partner to begin cue bidding sequence.

[mw64ahw]

I'm putting some notes together to help agree on our cue bidding, what have I missed?

 

Italian style cue bids

 

1st round (Ace, void) and 2nd round (K, singleton) cues

 

If the first cue is above game level, we show a 1st round control.

A cue in partners known shortness is an Ace

A second cue of a suit confirms 1st round control, either in a natural cue sequence or after an apparent game try sequence.

(first example is true as the cue is also above game, should it necessarily show first round if it is below game as in the second example?)

1♥:2♥

3♣*:4♥

5♣*

 

1♥:2♥

3♣*:3♥

4♣*

 

3♣ ostensibly a game try, 4♣, 5♣ 1st round cue asking partner to begin cue bidding sequence.

On the 2nd example I would start cue-bidding at 3♠ given trumps are set. Missing a suit denies the control. Decide what 3NT over 3♥ means. In this case I use it to deny 2/3 top honours and a ♠ control

 

On the 1st example I combine keycard showing with cue-bidding (Kickbo) which is an extension to Italian cue-bidding. The first step shows an even number of keycards. Any other step shows an odd number of keycards plus a 2nd round control or void. 4NT here would be a proxy for ♠. Further cue-bidding can occur above 5X starting with 5X+1 showing all keycards without QX, looking for the grand.

 

Also it should be Kx(x), singleton.

[DavidKok]

I don't think you have missed anything. There are important inferences when cue bidding from the failure to take control with Blackwood and from skipping other bids, but they are natural consequences of the agreements, not part of them.

Two questions that I think you should try to answer are

• How much extra does a control bid promise? For example on the auction 1♥-1♠; 3♥-4♣, or even your second example auction 1♥-2♥; 3♣-3♥; 4♣ - are you looking for the perfect hand, an above average hand or any non-junk?
  
• There is a conflict between Italian control bidding and 'shape first' bidding - for example, if you are dealt ♠QJxxx, ♥Kx, ♦AKQxx, ♣x and partner starts the auction with 1♥-1♠; 3♥-? you would now have to bid 4♣ and hide your good diamond suit. Some people have special agreements regarding shape showing versus controls, such as 'all bids below 3NT pattern out', 'we cue shortness first, aces and kings after', artificial 3NT bids to show hands without shortness or more. It's possible to get by without worrying too much about it, but it will come up every now and again. What is your preference in these situations?
  

As a slightly confusing aside, there are situations where, due to lack of bidding space, a remaining bid does not promise or deny a control but rather shows generic extra values, sometimes even after we have already started control bidding (Last Train is a famous example, but this also comes up on competitive auctions such as 1♥-(1♠)-2♥-(4♠); 5♣-(P)-? where 5♦ shows interest in 6♥ while 5♥ denies it).

 

Personally I would stay away from all the Kickbo, minorwood, redwood and more until you have a firm grasp of 'boring' old control bidding. Much like Blackwood I find many people overutilise their gadgets and don't consider their alternatives in sufficient detail. My rule of thumb still lives: if you have to jump, it's probably bad for slam bidding. That being said, improvements to Italian control bidding exist. They are just not very popular.

[pescetom]

I'm putting some notes together to help agree on our cue bidding, what have I missed?

A ton of stuff, but then there is an entire book (possibly several) about Italian style control-bidding, it's not a one page part of your agreements.

How to handle information squeeze, to breakout to keycards, to show keycards inline, to check the Queen and other issues need to be pinned down firmly.

Having said that, it doesn't have to be complicated to work, quite the opposite, the basic mechanism of showing the cheapest control handles the bulk of the load.

 

 

If the first cue is above game level, we show a 1st round control.

A cue in partners known shortness is an Ace

And a control-bid in a suit you already splintered is a Void.

But don't go too far in conventionalising control-bids, avoid hard-wiring assumptions about things like top honours of a preempt or intervention unless they reflect firm agreements for making those bids in the first place (in which case we are not on the same wavelength).

Partner will usually be able to work out from the control-bidding and basic bridge logic whether or not you have the Ace, in any case.

 

 

A second cue of a suit confirms 1st round control, either in a natural cue sequence or after an apparent game try sequence.

(first example is true as the cue is also above game, should it necessarily show first round if it is below game as in the second example?)

1♥:2♥

3♣*:4♥

5♣*

 

1♥:2♥

3♣*:3♥

4♣*

 

3♣ ostensibly a game try, 4♣, 5♣ 1st round cue asking partner to begin cue bidding sequence.

Yes you can play that if it really matches your preferred style of Trial Bids, if not then don't stretch to fit it in.

In any case remember that the core Italian logic of always showing your cheapest indifferentiated control or inline convention has precedence (with one useful exception, see below), so control-bidding clubs over partner's hearts bid in your examples will always deny spades control. Never give in to that atavic urge to mastermind things by skipping to a first level control you "know" is the key or faking a control to elict the reply that you "know" is best.

 

A more common and effective optimisation is to change the positive reply to a Game Try from a (space consuming) jump to game to a control-bid (either in any case, or to show a hand near maximum for the 2M reply). So now your first example could go:

1♥:2♥

3♣:3♦

4♣

where 3♦ accepts a game invite and shows control, 4♣ shows control (1st level by your meta-agreement) and denies spades control.

In a solid partnership you can extend this to other occasions when a limited hand accepts a game invite with a known or candidate trump suit, such as within Stayman or transfers.

 

 

 

Decide what 3NT over 3♥ means. In this case I use it to deny 2/3 top honours and a ♠ control

I agree with your narrowly defined meaning for 3NT Non-Serious, but like Belladonna I prefer that 3♥-3NT should (as an exception to normal rules) say nothing about spades control (i.e. give precedence to Non-Serious over spades control). Some serious competitive players resolve this issue by inverting the meanings of 3♠ and 3NT, but that is a recipe for disaster in most pairs.

 

 

Two questions that I think you should try to answer are

• How much extra does a control bid promise? For example on the auction 1♥-1♠; 3♥-4♣, or even your second example auction 1♥-2♥; 3♣-3♥; 4♣ - are you looking for the perfect hand, an above average hand or any non-junk?
  
• There is a conflict between Italian control bidding and 'shape first' bidding - for example, if you are dealt ♠QJxxx, ♥Kx, ♦AKQxx, ♣x and partner starts the auction with 1♥-1♠; 3♥-? you would now have to bid 4♣ and hide your good diamond suit. Some people have special agreements regarding shape showing versus controls, such as 'all bids below 3NT pattern out', 'we cue shortness first, aces and kings after', artificial 3NT bids to show hands without shortness or more. It's possible to get by without worrying too much about it, but it will come up every now and again. What is your preference in these situations?
  

My own answers to both are fairly uncompromising.

1. Taking the initiative with a control-bid doesn't promise much or little, it just says "enough" and commits the partnership, unilaterally. Partner has the mechanism to put on the brakes, but should trust and leave it up to the cards to define controls and make decisions emerge.

2. There is a conflict, but usually also a clear point at which it is optimal or last chance to start control-bidding. You may procrastinate as long as possible to exchange more about shape, but when the controls ship is about to sail you must jump on board.

 

 

Personally I would stay away from all the Kickbo, minorwood, redwood and more until you have a firm grasp of 'boring' old control bidding. Much like Blackwood I find many people overutilise their gadgets and don't consider their alternatives in sufficient detail. My rule of thumb still lives: if you have to jump, it's probably bad for slam bidding. That being said, improvements to Italian control bidding exist. They are just not very popular.

Agreed 100%: it's the basic indifferentiated control-bidding that does most of the work and the rest can be as simple as the partnership is comfortable with.

[jillybean]

Thanks , there's a lot to digest here and many points to discuss with partner. We won't be adding any woods and kickbo's in the foreseeable future.

 

1M 1x 3M strong jump, setting trump and asking partner to cue, or after any GF sequence I like what I believe is referred to a courtesy cues, partner will oblige with the cheapest cue below game and return to trump suit denying a control below game. In regards to using 3nt to deny a control below the 4 level, what is the advantage of this over showing a minor suit control at the 4 level. It appears that it could make life difficult for partner if she wanted to know about a club control?

[smerriman]

In regards to using 3nt to deny a control below the 4 level, what is the advantage of this over showing a minor suit control at the 4 level. It appears that it could make life difficult for partner if she wanted to know about a club control?

If partner wanted to know about a club control, 4♦ over 3NT will make that pretty clear. The general idea behind any type of non-serious 3NT bid is to prevent having to reveal extra information to the opponents if partner didn't really have any slam interest after all.