[Wainfleet]

When I first started reading about cue bidding for slams, the authors (Klinger etc.) did not distinguish between ace and void for first round control, or between king and singleton for second round control. I have recently come across several articles by England internationals (Robson, Bakshishi) where the articles are titled Ace Showing Cue Bids for Slam, rather than Control Showing Cue Bids with no examples involving voids or singletons, and apparently this is deliberate - one commented that if you include voids then partner 'may miscalculate'. Can anyone shed a little light on this please?

[DavidKok]

I know of three relevant arguments.

• If you count both the ace and a void as a first round control in a suit there are now suddenly two first round controls per suit. In particular, partner may have the ace opposite your void (or vice versa). This makes it possible for the partnership to hold three or even four first round controls, but still be off the first two tricks (because your controls overlapped).
  
• Showing aces(/kings) is helpful not just for verifying that the partnership does not lose two quick tricks in any side suit, but also for establishing the playing strength of the combined hands and possible sources of tricks. For example, most relay bidding schemes reserve a step to probe for the number of controls (A=2, K=1) partner has for a rough indication if the hands might be in the slam zone, or if probing at the 5-level is safe or not.
  
• If your partner has shown a side suit then knowing if you have the ace or a void makes a huge difference for the number of tricks they can expect to take. As an extreme example give partner KQxxx - opposite the ace you are likely to take 4 tricks (ruffing once on a 4-3 split), whereas opposite a void you will be taking around 0-2, depending on the rest of the hand. In my regular partnerships I have the agreement that control bid in partner's known long suit shows the ace or king, and not a void or singleton, to avoid this problem.

Lastly it is these days more common to play 'Italian style' control bids, where a control bid shows a first or second round control (so ace, king, void or singleton). This saves bidding space at the cost of ambiguity. Of course all of this only applies if a trump fit has been found.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2021-April-01, 02:42, said:

Lastly it is these days more common to play 'Italian style' control bids, where a control bid shows a first or second round control (so ace, king, void or singleton). This saves bidding space at the cost of ambiguity. Of course all of this only applies if a trump fit has been found.

It both saves bidding space and near eliminates the risk of calling a slam with insufficient controls. The ambiguity is functional rather than a limitation: yes you might have a King opposite a singleton unknown to you, but it is rare if bidding well at lower levels and assuming captaincy intelligently. The real downsides are that you spell out your controls to opponents and that occasionally partner will not get the chance to show/deny a crucial suit in time. But it's still a very powerful tool when properly used and well integrated in the system.

[Stephen Tu]

There are different styles of cue bidding; I think the mixed style of cue-bidding 1st/2nd round controls and high card/shortness up-the-line is more common these days.
However:
- if you have method to explicitly show shortness through some other method earlier in auction (usually splinter, sometimes through some raise gadget), you should usually choose to deploy it so partner can evaluate more accurately. Even better if your method can distinguish between singleton & void.

-If previous auction prevents you from cleanly showing shortness, most strongly recommend against cue-bidding shortness controls in partner's suits, so that partner can count on high card support for his honors when you do cue.

[Winstonm]

One way, which I always felt most comfortable with, is that after a fit is established, an initial cue-bid shows mild slam interest (unless later bidding show strong interest) . The responder to the cue bid can then show or deny cooperation, depending on whether or not the hand is slam orientated. The initial cue bids are based on 1st or 2nd round controls. Fast arrival principle denies slam interest.

This style of play requires some simple deduction along the way. For example:

1D-1H
2H-3C
3S

In this sequence, it is most likely that 3S is either the ace or a singleton. With the lead into the heart bidder, it would not be wise to show Kx or Kxx as a control for slam after partner has denied the Ace. It can also be deduced that partner holds control cards that are favorable for slam, not necessarily the top end of the 2H bid. For example, Axx, xxxx, AKxxx, x or x, QJxx, AKJxxx, xx are minimums that would cooperate.

Along with the 1st and 2nd method it is important to make a determination what 4NT means in a cue-bidding sequence, whether it is always Blackwood or something else. I have played it a number of ways, from Culbertson 4/5 NT convention to general slam try ( which tends to imply strong trumps) to Key Card and all worked.

Anyway, that's my 2 pennies if it helps.

[pescetom]

Winstonm, on 2021-April-01, 10:58, said:

Along with the 1st and 2nd method it is important to make a determination what 4NT means in a cue-bidding sequence, whether it is always Blackwood or something else. I have played it a number of ways, from Culbertson 4/5 NT convention to general slam try ( which tends to imply strong trumps) to Key Card and all worked.

The dominant method among those playing the 1st and 2nd method in traditional Italian style is that 4NT within an "established" control-bid sequence shows even keycards and a higher control-bid shows odd (it's established if the 4NT bidder has already made a control-bid).

[Winstonm]

Culbertson was kind of fun. Instead of asking it showed 2 aces and a king of a previously bid suit. If you then followed with 5 nt it showed an additional ace.

My reading of Reese and le Dentu gave me the impression that the original squadra azzura methods were ace asking 4n only if it was a jump or came in the first two bidding rounds, otherwise a general slam try which was left unexplained by those authors as well as Hamman in his book.

[mikeh]

Stephen Tu, on 2021-April-01, 08:09, said:

There are different styles of cue bidding; I think the mixed style of cue-bidding 1st/2nd round controls and high card/shortness up-the-line is more common these days.
However:
- if you have method to explicitly show shortness through some other method earlier in auction (usually splinter, sometimes through some raise gadget), you should usually choose to deploy it so partner can evaluate more accurately. Even better if your method can distinguish between singleton & void.

-If previous auction prevents you from cleanly showing shortness, most strongly recommend against cue-bidding shortness controls in partner's suits, so that partner can count on high card support for his honors when you do cue.

I’d modify your point about not cuebidding shortness in partner’s known suits. I rarely cue such shortness at my first chance.

However:

1. If my hand is such that I can place the contract (now or later) if I can get a cue in the suit just above partner’s suit, then I’ll happily cue a stiff or even a void, because now partner will tell me what I need to know.

2. If I’ve already bypassed that suit, then my later cue will be understood to be shortness. Absent unusual hands such as are involved in type 1 scenarios, my early cue will always deliver an ace or king, but say the suit was clubs, and I’ve bypassed 4C to bid 4D, then a later 5C would be shortness, having denied a top card control via my 4D cue