3046 oh boy

[DavidKok]

The main idea is that using 3NT for something is better than not using it for anything. (Non-)Serious NT uses it to split hands by strength, so that partner can safely sign off with a hand that was looking for the perfect dummy (this also helps at least partially resolve the weakness of 2/1 where slam can be missed when both sides have extras, but not enough to take charge). You can also use it as a no-splinter, giving more shape information, or as a substitute cue.

As far as I know the idea of not leaking information is at best incidental.

[Cyberyeti]

The main idea is that using 3NT for something is better than not using it for anything. (Non-)Serious NT uses it to split hands by strength, so that partner can safely sign off with a hand that was looking for the perfect dummy (this also helps at least partially resolve the weakness of 2/1 where slam can be missed when both sides have extras, but not enough to take charge). You can also use it as a no-splinter, giving more shape information, or as a substitute cue.

As far as I know the idea of not leaking information is at best incidental.

 

We use 3N as a cipher for the most expensive cue bid rather than serious/non serious.

[smerriman]

As far as I know the idea of not leaking information is at best incidental.

I was probably thinking of the difference between non-serious and serious, where they have been some pretty strong arguments on BW about how much the information leakage is important, and much more than incidental.

 

But compared to not playing 3NT at all, then definitely.

[jillybean]

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.

 

What do I know but the disadvantage of information leak is minimal compared to using up an entire bidding level to confirm a minor control.

[smerriman]

Is there a specific sequence you're referring to? Neither option uses up an entire bidding level - they're only a single bid apart - so I'm probably misunderstanding altogether.

[ali quarg]

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.

 

I can understand not using any 'woods', but I thought Turbo and Kickbo combined cue-bidding and keycard showing so these seem a natural extension to cue-bidding.

[pescetom]

I can understand not using any 'woods', but I thought Turbo and Kickbo combined cue-bidding and keycard showing so these seem a natural extension to cue-bidding.

I think that Turbo fits your bill as a way to show keycards inline which is a natural addition to control bidding and simple in its basic format. The important thing is not to complicate it unnecessarily, there are Italians with pages of notes about it including Kickback mechanisms too.

[ali quarg]

I think that Turbo fits your bill as a way to show keycards inline which is a natural addition to control bidding and simple in its basic format. The important thing is not to complicate it unnecessarily, there are Italians with pages of notes about it including Kickback mechanisms too.

I would have said that a basic Turbo/Kickbo simplifies the issue as it clarifies the keycard picture above 4X so sign-off can be immediate. Otherwise you have to repeat cue at the 5 -level providing unnecessary information to opponents to establish that the slam is off.

[mikeh]

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.

Dealing with your example of 1H 2H 3C……I suggest a useful treatment for responder in these situations, in which the ostensible meaning of the new suit by opener is some form of game try: if responder is accepting the try, he should cuebid any ace below game.

 

So 1H 2H 3C 4H says ‘I like the 3C bid (what it means is for partnership discussion) but I do not have any ace in a side suit..

 

1H 2H 3C 3S would be ‘I like the 3C bid and if you were in fact interested in slam, I have the spade Ace’

 

This means that opener doesn’t need to bid over 4H if two aces are known to be missing.

 

There is, as often happens, a complicating factor

 

Say help suit tries are being used. 1H 2H 3C 3D should not be a cuebid, accepting the try. It should, imo, mean ‘I don’t like the 3C try but I have a good hand and would accept a diamond try’

 

This is because sometimes opener has need for help in two suits: help in either is sufficient. Opener should make the initial try in the cheaper of the two suits, leaving room for responder to reject that one but, with an appropriate hand, offer help elsewhere.

 

Note that this shouldn’t complicate my suggestion about cuebidding in case opener was making a slam try. Say responder liked the club try and held the diamond Ace. He bids 4D over 3C…it’s below game. If you’d rather use that as a splinter, one can play that 3D is ambiguous. But delayed splinters are uncommon….especially if one plays any form of Bergen or similar treatment where one can show a 4 card constructive raise through some call other than 2H….if so, then being able to splinter after 1H 2H 3C would be most unusual.

 

As for one’s style of cuebidding, the practice of bidding conveniently, without distinguishing between first and second round controls, has been called the Italian style, since members of the Italian team popularized it, but these days it’s almost universal amongst good players around the world

 

Imo, a good rule is that one does not make one’s first cue in a primary suit bid by partner unless it is a high card control…the ace or the king. Bidding, say, a stiff can cause all kinds of evaluation problems.

 

Say I have Qxx x AQxxxx Axxx

 

1S 2D 2S 3S

 

A 4D cue makes my hand very powerful….if it shows the King. It really doesn’t help much, in terms of my hand’s trick taking power, if it could be a singleton.

 

AKJxxx Axx x Jxx makes for a poor slam, especially on the likely club lead. AKJxxx xxx Kx xxx makes for a good slam

 

Another point, and one I’ve made many times before, is that imo it’s useful to regard cuebids below game as saying only that ‘I may have strong slam interest but more commonly I have a hand on which I’m prepared to cooperate if you hold strong interest yourself’

 

Often both partners have similar ideas…neither has an especially strong interest in slam, but neither has a hand that wants to shut the auction down right away. Then there is an exchange of cuebids below game, ranging from just one to as many as three or four…but finally one partner bids game, denying any strong interest, and the other, lacking such interest herself, passes.

 

On the other hand, cuebidding beyond game promises strong interest.

 

Btw, I agree that the first cuebid of a previously un-cued suit, if made beyond game, shows first round control. Whether it need be the ace or could be a void depends on the auction. It would rarely b3 an ace unless the opponents have bid that suit.

[Cyberyeti]

I've stayed out of this discussion so far because we have the distinction that 1♣-1♦-3♥ is specifically a void, the hands with singletons go thru our GF unbal 1♣-1♦-2N.

 

It has raised some questions which I will need to take up with partner because some of our sequences with the singleton are clearly sub optimal.