Using 3NT as a cue bid to deny clubs

[ArcLight]

What do you think of this?

 

When cue bidding for a slam, 3NT has no natural meaning, so make up one.

 

In Ron Klingers "Modern Losing Trick Count" he has a section where he suggests 3NT after a Limit Raise (10-12 support points and 4 trumps) of a Major to deny first round control of the Club suit. The idea is this saves a level of bidding as responder can bid 4 ♣ if he has it. If reponder is also lacking the Ace of ♣ you find out quickly.

 

Here is how he describes the cue bidding:

 

1♥ - 3♥ -

 

4♠ = cue bidding the ♠ Ace

3NT = Denying the ♣ Ace and the ♠ Ace (since 3♠ was not bid)

4♣ = cue bidding both the Aces of ♣ and ♠

4♦ = cue bidding all outside aces

 

The downside is if you can't just cue bid the ♦Ace, you have to first cue bid 3NT, then later cubid ♦.

 

 

1♠ - 3♠ -

3NT = Denying the ♣ Ace

4♣ = cue bidding ♣ Ace

4♦ = cue both the Aces of ♣ and ♦

[joker_gib]

I suppose this is 4♣ and 4♦ as it is difficult to bid 3♣ or 3 ♦ on 3M ! :P

 

Sorry but I don't really see any advantage to this method :huh:

 

What is the problem with let's say

 

1M-3M

3♠ : ♠ cue on ♥

4♣ : ♣ cue and not ♠

4♦ : ♦ cue denying ♠ and ♣ cues ???

 

This saves 3NT for other purpose : shortness ask, suggesting 3NT contract or what ever you want ...

[Echognome]

I personally prefer the 3NT cuebid as showing good trumps. Then a cuebid of a minor would deny a good trump holding. That might be more useful anyway if slam is going to be in the picture. You will have to discuss with your partner what constitutes a good or bad trump holding.

 

I don't think after a 4-card limit raise you will want to play in 3NT often enough to use that. However, if you are playing 4 card majors it might be more useful.

[Guest Jlall]

I prefer a variant of serious 3N... 3N is serious about playing 3N :huh:

[cherdano]

I prefer a variant of serious 3N... 3N is serious about playing 3N :huh:

Wow, you are a serious player Justin!

[ArcLight]

I prefer a variant of serious 3N... 3N is serious about playing 3N :huh:

Justin,

 

When is the last time 3NT was the correct contract after a 1♠ - 3♠ or 1♥-3♥ sequence? Especially since the 3♥ may be based on ruffing values, as opposed to pure HCP. I think 3NT would be a very very rare contract.

 

 

>I personally prefer the 3NT cuebid as showing good trumps.

 

Wont that come out when you get to RKCBW? If you have weak trumps, you still have 9, and cue bidding will be revealing in the other suits. If pard has 2 Aces, and 2 key cards, you sign off in 5 of the major. Only if one opponent has AKQ do you get set. Possible, but not likely.

 

 

>This saves 3NT for other purpose : shortness ask, suggesting 3NT contract or what ever you want

 

You are now at the 4 level. Partner didnt make a splinter, though he may be short, with just not enough for a game force. What would 3NT show? Shortness and few HCP? This would imply you have 3 suits well controlled, and are woried about xxx in the 4th suit. It doesnt seem that pard will often have 0/1 in that suit.

And if they do, then they have few HCP. This method can work, but it requires opener to have a monster, and pard to have shortness. I think it will be infrequent, and a different use for 3NT should be found.

 

 

I dont think Your examples really work as well. Or maybe I just dont understand them.

 

1 ♥ - 3♥

What do you propose for the meaning of 3♠, 4♣, 4♦?

 

With standard cue bidding they show a first round control, and by implication deny control of a skipped over suit.

 

 

Its more likely that opener, who has a big hand, will have the aces, and want to know what responder (with the Limited hand) holds. Hence the space saving 3NT.

 

 

What is "Serious 3NT"?

This is from www.bridgeguys.com but doesnt explain it in any detail. It seems to give up on cue bidding.

 

Serious 3 No Trump

A slam bidding method which was conceived of by Mr. Eric Rodwell. After an 8-card Major suit fit has been established below 3 No Trump, a bid of 3 No Trump is a serious slam invitation, and therefore forcing. Certain partnerships play that the 3 No Trump bid is a serious and strong slam try to which the responses of 4 Clubs or 4 Diamonds signify a mild slam try; the response of 4 Hearts offers the partner a choice of games. In other partnerships, the 3 No Trump bid is a so-called non-serious slam try, and the cuebid is the serious and strong slam try.

[joker_gib]

I prefer a variant of serious 3N... 3N is serious about playing 3N :P

LOL

 

I like this "complex" system ! :huh:

[Guest Jlall]

I prefer a variant of serious 3N... 3N is serious about playing 3N :huh:

Justin,

 

When is the last time 3NT was the correct contract after a 1♠ - 3♠ or 1♥-3♥ sequence? Especially since the 3♥ may be based on ruffing values, as opposed to pure HCP. I think 3NT would be a very very rare contract.

You'd be surprised how often its right at MP (and how often I've had the auction...) at IMPs I admit i've had it less fequently, but it has come up. Keep in mind partner is always allowed to correct.

[Walddk]

With standard cue bidding they show a first round control, and by implication deny control of a skipped over suit.

Standard where? North America? It's not standard in Europe (except Britain perhaps). Here it shows any control: A, K, singleton or void. The Italian way of cue bidding (mixed), 1st or 2nd round control. I strongly recommend that you use that method. There is a world of a difference if responder doesn't know about any kind of control after this auction:

 

1♥ - 3♥

4♣

 

Can opener have ♠K or a singleton? He can if 3♠ only denies the ace, and that will leave responder in the dark. Playing cue bids the Italian way responder will know for sure that opener has no spade control at all, and therefore he has an easy sign off if he doesn't have one either.

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

The idea of using 3NT as an artifical bid following the auction 1M - 3M is fairly standard. Others have already noted that Klinger's concept is very similar to serious 3NT and suffers from mainy of the same limitations (most notably the loss of the "natural" 3NT bid)

 

Its unclear to me whether its better to use 3NT to convey information about strength or compress the controls...

[Finch]

I don't cue bid in this auction, I play trial bids which I find much more helpful.

So 1M - limit raise - 4C is a natural slam try.

 

People are so hung up on Aces, they forget to look for 12 tricks.

 

(OK, we don't play this, we play some slightly more complex shape relays after a limit raise, but the concept is still there: it's more important to look for 12 tricks than immediately just controls; controls come later)

[ArcLight]

1♥ - 3♥ - 3NT

 

>You'd be surprised how often its right at MP

 

4♥ making 4 = 420, while 3NT making 3 = 400. Frequently 4 of a major is a better contract at MP than 3NT. 3NT can be good with extra HCP.

 

 

>Standard where? North America? It's not standard in Europe (except Britain perhaps). Here it shows any control: A, K, singleton or void. The Italian way of cue bidding (mixed), 1st or 2nd round control. I strongly recommend that you use that method.

 

Roland, you are certainly more familiar with this than I am, but I wonder if thats really better? If responder makes a cue bid that turns out to be in a key suit, and declarer goes onto slam, and that cue bid turns out to have been a king in dummy, you may go down, if the Ace is over dummies King.

 

 

 

>People are so hung up on Aces, they forget to look for 12 tricks.

 

Aces Shmaces, just give me HCP and distribution, right? ;)

 

I disagree, you may have 15 tricks, but unfortunately the opponents have 2, and they get to take theirs first.

 

A K Q x x x J 10 x x x

x x x x

A

A K x x x Q J 10 x x

 

Is this a good Spade slam?

 

1♠ - 3♠ - 4♣ ... 6♠

 

What will get lead? A Heart or a Diamond

 

 

Note: When I say standard I mean standard in North America. (is there really civilization elsewhere? I thought the rest of the world was covered by grasslands, forests, Woolly Mammoths and Saber toothed tigers! :)

 

This cue bidding is from Ron Klingers book, he is Australian, but I guess he counts as part of teh "Standard" world which consists of North America, Great Britain, and its former colonies. [what is the correct term for the former colonies of Great Britain? Commonwealth countries?]

[hrothgar]

Roland, you are certainly more familiar with this than I am, but I wonder if thats really better? If responder makes a cue bid that turns out to be in a key suit, and declarer goes onto slam, and that cue bid turns out to have been a king in dummy, you may go down, if the Ace is over dummies King.

In my experience, the Italian cue bidding style is a clear winner when your investigating small slams. Your often able to stop at a low level when you find that some suit is wide open. The North American style works well when you're investigating grands.

 

I know which case happens more often...

[Finch]

I disagree, you may have 15 tricks, but unfortunately the opponents have 2, and they get to take theirs first.

 

A K Q x x x J 10 x x x

x x x x

A

A K x x x Q J 10 x x

 

Is this a good Spade slam?

 

1♠ - 3♠ - 4♣ ... 6♠

Well on that hand I'd bid 1S - 4D - 5C - 5D - 5S

But if I started the way you suggest, East doesn't have to bid 6S over 4C, East is allowed to cue bid to show a suitable hand.

 

This cue bidding is from Ron Klingers book, he is Australian, but I guess he counts as part of teh "Standard" world which consists of North America, Great Britain, and its former colonies.  [what is the correct term for the former colonies of Great Britain?  Commonwealth countries?]

 

Andy Robson did a series of articles in the Times a year or so ago where he recommended trial bids in this auction. So I'm not exactly alone here.

 

I'm not going to start making up loads of hands, but if you've got something like

 

AKQxx

Q10xx

AKx

x

 

you want partner to concentrate on his heart holding, not just whether he has the Ace or King.

[han]

I also prefer a cuebid to show any kind control. I think that this is also the mainstream expert approach in North America, is that correct?

 

Even though I think that using 3NT as a suggestion to play there after a major suit raise, I'm willing to give up on this after we have found a major suit fit at the 3-level to gain more options for slam bidding. Here is why:

 

1) IMPs are my main interest. I'm not serious enough to play two different systems depending on form of scoring. (So I only change style/judgement, not partnership agreements)

 

2) When we find the major suit fit at the 3-level, it is unlikely that we will be able to determine with great confidence that 3NT is the right spot. I'm willing to give up on 3NT in this case.

 

Note that I play 1M-2C-2D-2M as a 3-card limit raise. In this case we have plenty room to explore, and I'm certainly not willing to give up on playing in 3NT.

[mike777]

My .02 cents worth.

 

1) Whatever very rare problem hand you are trying to fix is not worth the time or energy. Note you already know you have a 9 card fit and pard has an 8LTC hand.

2) I tried getting fancy with having cuebids show any kind of control many years ago and the confusion just was not worth the hassal. See Kantar's numerous funny disasters at the highest levels of bridge.

3) Have found just showing my first round controls easiest along with the rare K in partner's long suit is more than enough for cuebidding 99%+.

 

Good luck.

[DJNeill]

Hi all,

I know that garozzo (sillafu on bbo) plays this 3N as denying 1st round club control currently with his girlfriend.

 

Thanks,

Dan

[han]

Thanks for your .02 cents Mike, but you can keep them:

 

1) Whatever very rare problem hand you are trying to fix is not worth the time or energy. Note you already know you have a 9 card fit and pard has an 8LTC hand.

 

Trying to find out whether slam is good does not only occur on "rare problem hands"! It is a very frequent problem in bridge, and making clear and good agreements with partner about slam investigation is winning bridge, not overly scientific nonsense.

 

2) I tried getting fancy with having cuebids show any kind of control many years ago and the confusion just was not worth the hassal. See Kantar's numerous funny disasters at the hightest levels of bridge.

 

To my mind, cuebidding only aces is too fancy. I have to think really hard to see if I'm missing two tricks in a suit. It shouldn't be hard to give numerous funny disasters at the highest levels of bridge for players who use this approach.

 

3) Have found just showing my first round controls easiest along with the rare K in partner's long suit is more than enough for cuebidding 99%+.

 

I'm impressed with your excellent judgement, I know nobody who's slam bidding is 99%+. I'm a bit sceptical though.

 

You claim to get your advice from the best of the best. I would think that these pairs have very clear agreements about exactly what a cuebid shows. I doubt that it is as easy as you make it sound.

[Guest Jlall]

Andy Robson did a series of articles in the Times a year or so ago where he recommended trial bids in this auction. So I'm not exactly alone here.

Indeed, you are not alone (even though you knew that).

 

I was taught once that the first slam try should always be semi-natural or natural. This is an excellent rule that I still follow today, especially in an auction like this. The most important thing is how the hands fit, the controls can come later. I completely agree with your comment about people being so hung up on aces that they forget to look for 12 tricks. There needs to be some kind of tricks and natural bidding over a limit raise will help you diagnose if you have that or not.

 

Another common auction where I think natural bids should apply:

 

2C p 2D p

2M p 3M p

4x.

[hrothgar]

My .02 cents worth.

 

1) Whatever very rare problem hand you are trying to fix is not worth the time or energy. Note you already know you have a 9 card fit and pard has an 8LTC hand.

2) I tried getting fancy with having cuebids show any kind of control many years ago and the confusion just was not worth the hassal. See Kantar's numerous funny disasters at the highest levels of bridge.

3) Have found just showing my first round controls easiest along with the rare K in partner's long suit is more than enough for cuebidding 99%+.

 

Good luck.

the "rare" problem is lack of bidding space...

personally, I've foudn that lack of bidding space is a problem for most systems

 

If you don't like complexity, thats fine and dandy, but don't try to pretend that the problem doesn't exist

[Guest Jlall]

>You'd be surprised how often its right at MP

 

4♥ making 4 = 420, while 3NT making 3 = 400.  Frequently 4 of a major is a better contract at MP than 3NT.  3NT can be good with extra HCP.

Thanks, I'm aware of the scoring system. Speaking about MP, on the hands where the major and NT can take the same amount of tricks then why should you not be able to get there? Usually you will get to the major after 1H p 3H p even if the opener bids 3N. But the hands that 3N is right can be diagnosed with a fair amount of accuracy. Induldge me that 10 % of the time 3N will be better than 4H. Say you will get a top by playing 3N, and an average by playing 4H. Say of the 10 % of hands that 3N is right, you will find it 30 % of the time by playing 3N as natural. Assume that the times you get there and it's wrong (which shouldn't be frequent as you should be pretty sure when you choose to play 3N with 9 card fits in majors) are countered by the times where you steal an extra trick in NT because they make a wrong lead, misdefend, etc (much much more common in my experience but we'll assume that they're equal). That means on 3 % of the hands this auction comes up, you will gain half a board. That would be a hard number for any slam try mechanism to make up as it is quite signifcant. The advantages of serious 3N opposite a limited partner are minimal, and I think trump cues or space saving cues also would not gain you that much but that's just my judgement.

[mike777]

I'm a bit sceptical though.

 

You claim to get your advice from the best of the best. I would think that these pairs have very clear agreements about exactly what a cuebid shows. I doubt that it is as easy as you make it sound.

Thanks for response Han. This post is just my .02 cents worth. I make no claim of advice from anyone else on this one :). Take full blame for any silly posts, no one else.

 

I agree with your important point, I would think the top class players would have very clear agreements on cuebids. Yes, I still argue simple cuebidding is fine for slam hands 99%+. But different opinions make for a horse race ;).

 

Though, Kantar has written many times on his cuebid disasters. :).

 

btw I assume if we are using LTC then if pard has an 8LTC hand then we have we have around a 6 LTC hand to make slam try.

 

btw2 I love that Klinger book. My only problem is I sometimes forget to use the adjustments :). One time forgot when playing with Han of all people, ooops...see his forum post where he was kind enough to not use my name :).

[han]

Mike,

 

Back to that hand, I think that the main mistake was not your small calculation mistake, but the fact that you took Klinger's formula too seriously. Let me try to explain the problem using a metaphor from my real life.

 

As you probably told you, I teach mathematics. I strongly encourage my students not to use calculators. Why? Because when students use calculators they become too dependent of those little machines, and don't learn to think for themselves. Everybody makes calculation mistakes sometimes, but those students who have learned to think notice when their answer doesn't correspond to reality. The students who only stare at their calculators have no clue.

 

I think that you made a gross calculation mistake (can happen to everybody) but instead of looking back at the hand and noticing that your result couldn't be right, you trusted your formula and invited game. I must say that you played the hand really well in 3H (and the opponents misdefended) and down one was not such a bad result. Afterwards you blamed the bad contract on a calculation mistake and you learned nothing.

 

I think that the bridge teachers who try to make bridge easier for there students by giving them formulas (think Goren, Culbertson, Cohen, Bergen, Klinger, etc. and a few of our own forum members too) are not doing their students a favor. I know, students wants those formulas and such books sell well, but students should be taught to think and to develop judgement. Talented students who get too hung up on rules are ruined for life.

 

 

I insulted enough great bridge players and teachers by now so I'd better stop.

[mike777]

Good Point, developing judgement should be top prioity. No, did not know you teach Math but sounds like a great approach. In Finance almost no one seems to understand the math that underlies the formulas and they just use the calculator (;. They just punch in Black's formulas and read the answer. As for myself when I studied ARCH for my CFA Charter, it hurt my head but I passed. I think I have reached my Math limits. My partners may say I reached my limits when I could not count to 13. :D.

 

This post assumed standard limit raises but for many who use Bergen here is another viewpoint. Of course many top players dislike Bergen including Lawrence/Hardy but for you old fogeys out there who still use it here is some stuff for discussion that a buddy emailed me.

 

Please note: 3c=4 tumps 7-10 hcp and 3d=4 trumps, limit raise.

 

"I advocate that an immediate cue bid by opener on the 4 level to show a void! Other than that, cue-bids often show the ace, but might be on a King if thats the best you can do. These are the hands that the hardest to bid without such an agreement AND you pretty much need to have a void to be making a slam try on a hand that is not suitable for blackwood. Cue-bids on the three level can initially be on anything. Much of the time you may only be trying for game--your subsequent bidding clarifies.

 

I play this over 3C or 3D responses to 1 of a Major....

 

 

Example auctions are useful:

 

1S 3D

??

 

3H - either a generic game try OR a generic slam try. repsonder either signs off, or should cue bid back. 3NT is accepting and giving opener more room to cue-bid, and it implies you don't have a club control, since you didnt bid 4C.

 

3S - sign off

 

3NT - Mathe....asking responder to bid a singleton (or void). A good example of that would be: KQJxxx AK xxxx x

 

4C - club void

4D - diamond void

4H - heart void

 

so after a void showing response, blackwood now can now exclude the void suit.....

 

---------------------------------------

 

1S 3C

??

 

3D or 3H - either a long/help suit game try in the suit bid OR an advance cue for slam in the suit bid. Responder initially assumes the game try, and if he is accepting should try to cue bid something in case it was a slam try.

 

3S - sign off

 

3NT - Mathe....asking responder to bid a singleton (or void). A good example of that would be: KQJxxx AK xxxx A

 

4C - club void

4D - diamond void

4H - heart void

 

---------------------------------------

 

1H 3D

??

 

3H - sign off

 

3S - Mathe....asking responder to bid a singleton (or void). Respond in steps...3NT-clubs, 4C-diaomonds, 4D-spades

 

3NT - generic slam try, inviting responder to cue bid something...

 

4C - club void

4D - diamond void

4H - sign-off

4S - Kickback!

---------------------------------------

 

1H 3C

??

 

3D - either a generic game try OR a generic slam try. repsonder either signs off, or should cue bid back.

 

3H - sign off

 

3S - Mathe....asking responder to bid a singleton (or void). Respond in steps...3NT-clubs, 4C-diaomonds, 4D-spades

 

3NT - generic slam try, inviting responder to cue bid something...

 

4C - club void

4D - diamond void

4H - sign-off

4S - Kickback!"

---------------------------------------

[ArcLight]

What would a hand look like that would prefer to play in 3NT rather than 4 of a major, given that we have at least a 5-4 trump fit?

 

Can you give some examples?

 

Would they all be 5-3-3-2?