[FrancesHinden]

Walddk, on Feb 15 2006, 04:06 PM, said:

Makes a lot of sense, Justin, and whereas the Brits seem to stick to the old school of first round control cue bidding at the 4-level, I think it's dead and buried as soon as you cross the Channel - in most instances apparently also if you head West across the pond.

To be fair, I also know (of) British top pairs who do cue bid the Italian way these days.

Roland

becoming more popular in England is to play trial bids.
Uncontested
1S - 3S
4D (say)

Natural long suit trial bid.
Not an Italian cue bid or a British cue bid at all....

I'm not going to enter into a long debate about which is better, because I have not played both methods seriously. I will say that I don't feel my slam bidding has been handicapped by playing a 'generally first round controls first' approach to cue bidding when relevant, with flexibility in some obvious positions. You sometimes end up guessing, but then with the Italian style you also sometimes end up guessing.

We have toyed with playing various meanings for 4NT in major-suit-agreed cue-bidding auctions, and came to the conclusion that it was theoretically sound but too difficult for us non-full-time-bridge-players.

[mike777]

Putting the Cart before the Horse?

This post does not analyze the rather radical proposition by Bob Hamman as quoted by Karen McCallum that he feels he may be ahead in his career if he never bid any slams.

Here you are debating first or second round controls without fully discussing the issue of the cost of trying for a slam in the first place.

If nothing else going against the commonly accepted wisdom, "of course try for slam" may have some learning value....

[ArcLight]

Are there any books or articles that describe cue bidding aces and kings at the same time, rather than the traditional aces first.
Ron Klinger has a brief section in his book "Cue Bidding to Slam".

I'd like to see cases where the players knew to bail out early.

[joshs]

There are many styles to cue-bidding.
Style 1: Cue-bidding shows Aces and a good hand for slam
Style 2: Cue-Bidding is 1'st or second round control. Cue bidding an Ace is manditory. But you only Cue-bid Kings/singletons if you like your hand (usually good trumps and / or good secondary cards in a relevent side suit)
Style 3: You Cue-bid everything in site up the line, but have a different mechanism to say good hand or bad hand (e.g. Serious or Non-Serious 3N)
Style 4: Finally there is a non- cuebidding style using natural slam tries:
E.G.:2C-2D (waiting)-2S-3S(some useful values)-4D(showing 3+ diamonds)-now responder can cue bid an ace in the other suits, raise diamonds with a fitting card, bid 5S with very good spades and no side ace (or some play good spades and diamonds or maybe its just 3 working cards such as the SK and the D QJ) or bid keycard with the world's fare. In General, opposite a limited partner when you haven't yet shown your side suit shape I prefer natural slam tries: 1S-1N(Forcing)-2H-3S-4C I prefer this to be a 5413 17-18 count (or maybe 5503 or 5512) then a cue-bid. Let partner evaluate his cards.

There are certainly some other styles.

In General, if partner tried for slam and you signed off or bypassed a control (if allowed) to cue-bid something else, and partner tried again at the 5 level you are obligated to show the missing control then (you do show 2'nd round controls in this case). (Showing it then after signing off earlier makes it clear that you have a bad hand).



I was personally reared on style 2, but have migrated to style 3 since I think using 3N to distinguish ranges is very powerful. I do think having the first slam try be natural is usually correct when you have not yet shown shape or shortage and the logic of the auction indicates you need a perfect fit for slam.

[Walddk]

joshs, on Feb 15 2006, 11:31 PM, said:

Style 3: You Cue-bid everything in site up the line, but have a different mechanism to say good hand or bad hand (e.g. Serious or Non-Serious 3N)

I think a 3A is missing:

You cue bid everything in sight up the line without adopting the serious 3NT. Obviously, you won't cue bid if you're not interested in slam.

Roland

[joshs]

What ever happened to good old-fashioned blasting?

Personally I like the zia-michael style:
1S-2H-3H-4C(slam interest, weakness in SOME minor)-4D(I like my hand and I have a control in SOME minor)-6S

Ok its not alerted and explained as such, but everyone knows that this is what the auction means....

[Winstonm]

Jlall, on Feb 15 2006, 04:59 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 15 2006, 10:49 AM, said:

Quote

Ok, I got:
- most cues above 5 of your suit are first round controls as they're trying for grand (such as 3H 5D p 5H).
... seems to be a valid rule. I will change it to: All cues above 5 of your suit are first round controls as they're trying for grand.

This is not quite right IMO.

1S-3S
4D-4S
5C-5D

This is not above 5 of our suit.

I think 5C is Gerberwood in this auction.

[Kalvan14]

Good players always find the Italian style more productive and flexible.
Weaker players will be more comfortable with a rigid "1st cue-bid shows 1st rank control" style.

[kenrexford]

ArcLight, on Feb 15 2006, 04:53 PM, said:

Are there any books or articles that describe cue bidding aces and kings at the same time, rather than the traditional aces first.
Ron Klinger has a brief section in his book "Cue Bidding to Slam".

I'd like to see cases where the players knew to bail out early.

Belladonna and Petroncini have a text that I found at:

http://www.geocities...neill_2000/sys/

Not bad...

There may well be a book on cuebidding theory, with several examples, coming from Master Point Press not too long from now. I hear the author is a little nuts, though.

[Impact]

The key is context rather than rules (albeit you may formulate your own rules).

Hence it makes sense to use multicues once you have described distribution (eg generally whether there is a sidesuit, shortage etc) but also with some discretion.
eg a sensible base is that you skip a distributional control in partner's known suit on the first scan.

Cue-bidding should be a delicate art to reach slam and much of the time the issue is whether the values are present (which is what cuebidding is all about). By contrast Bw/RKCB etc is a check that you are not missing cards off the top (in different suits) but does nothing to assist in judging the strength necessary to reach (and make) slam.

Most of the Italian methods involved some description (you may recall even the use of bidding starting with 2m and 4om over Major bids to show like/ascending controls or different/descending controls) with 4NT in the midst of a cue bidding sequence as Declaratory Interrogative which meant interest in teh circumstances and could mean depending upon the prior bidding anything from very good trumps to all the side carsds but poor trumps or bid more if you have the missing suit under control....or even bid slam if your shown controls are first as opposed to 2nd round...!

First round cues are primarily useful where you establish the fit early and think the perfect hand could be on, but the covercards could easily be K instead of A rendering slam hopeless (typically after double fits are found with limited hands but there is uncertainty whether K or A in side suits are held).

I hypothesised to Rubens a couple of decades ago that cuebidding should vary depending upon the nature of the information disclosed (and often in line with potential play). eg when you raise a 5+card major you define your hand frequently within narrow limits of tricktaking expectation:
in most of your varied form of raises typically retaining at most only one bid for the huge hand which wishes to retain controls. Now if opener thinks you are in slam range it is the quality of the controls that counts.

By contrast most dialogue bidding allows more subtle inferences of strength to be provided - and now the issue of multicueing allows both additional strengthh and sidecontrols to be shown. Note that you have clues in putative play as the 4-4 fit is less suited to covercard analysis, but provides alternatives with long sidesuits and increased likelihood of dummy reversals.....now side features of Honours in a 2nd suit are likely to be crucial - but misfitting shortage critical to assessments as to slam viability.

Multicues get a bad name from the occasional slam bid missing 2 cashing A ("any beginner would avoid that") but the option of delicate slam investigation by conveying additional strength with a first cue bid (and partner responding up to game level but only proceeding past game with additional strength of his own) is all too often ignored. This allows you to find slams - and sometimes even make them when you ARE missing 2 A!!

Impact seeks to incorporate all these ideas and more - but unfortunately its mortal practitioners are compelled to work for a living and the results have not always justified the degree of detail required and understanding which goes beyond Q &A !!

regards,

fred

[joshs]

Here are the fictional Josh Slam Tries (No, no-one uses them):

1S-2C(GF)-2S-3S-3N(Do You like Your Hand?)
4C(I love my hand)
   4D Really?
    4H Yes Really
       4S Well I totally suck, I just asked to be polite
          P OK I believe you
     4S Well I thought it was good, but I guess it could be better
        P Playing Slams is too stressful
   4H Well, Al Roth wouldn't have opened my hand, but I have had worse
     4S Well in that case
   4S Will 3 kings and a Jack do?
      P Probably not

4D(Its pretty Good)
   4H OK I have a real opener this time, is that good enough?
     4S probably not, since you are playing it

4H (Well, I do expect to make game, I think)
  4S Sounds Good, sadly I am playing it

4S (Can we go back to 3S?)
   P Well maybe if we ask the opps nicely