[gwnn]

In slam auctions, how can the partnership know of 2nd round control like Kx in dummy and Qxx... at declarer? I know this is a silly question, but as usual I don't seem to know the answer. Pretend 6NT is unplayable.

[helene_t]

Most people here in the Netherlands cue second-round control freely, so Kx will do. If partner doesn't have the queen and the ace is behind the king and the king is in dummy (or declarer must play a small towards the king to get to his twelveth trick, tough luck.

From reading American books I get the impression that American experts use judgement when deciding whether or not to cue a king.

[inquiry]

I cue-bid kings and aces up the line with no preference for 1st or 2nd round as I go.

[Fluffy]

I don't have any problem cueing Kings, but I avoid them when partner could have singelotn on the suit.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

you may have a look at Klingers "Power Acol",
maybe just look at "Power", but I have only read
the book he about "Power Acol".

He suggested "Roman Key Card Control Ask", which
works similar to Cue Bidding.
If your memory is really good, you may try out the follow
up structure, which allows you to find out the specific
honor distribution.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[ArcLight]

>I think its almost unanimous here these days to cuebid kings (unless partner has shown shortness in the suit of course).


Justin (an anyone else) - are there any articles/books on this style of bidding, other than:

Ron Klingers Cue Bididng
Ken Rexfords Cue Bidding
Belladonnas article on cue bidding


Specifically, what are some of the problems to look out for using mixed cue bidding, (and how are the problems solved).

1♥ - 3♥
4♣ - 4♦ =
>>>>>the 4♣ bid denies a spade control. What does the 4♦ bid show?
Does it show the ♣ control, and has nothing to do with ♦?
Do you use 3NT for a meaning other than natural (to play in 3NT).

If the responder has both a ♣ and ♦ control, what do they bid? 4♥ sounds like a sign off.

Do you have to use 3NT as a slam try? In Klingers book one idea is it denies the ability to cue bid 3♠, while 4♣ is a cue bid for both ♣ and ♠


The Italians use Turbo instead of Blackwood, yes? The Italians are obviosly no fools, why isn't Turbo being used widely by US Experts if they use mixed cue bidding?

I am VERY interested in seeing a comprehensive set of system notes for mized cue bidding (kings and aces).

Would a strong experienced player please post a few comments, and show some hands where mixed cue bidding needs to be handled with care. (i.e. not a hand where mixed is better than straditional ace first, but instead where mixed cue bidding can work badly unless some understanding is in place, or judgment is involved)

[goobers]

Why does 4♣ bid deny spade control? If partner wants to show both black suit controls, it would actually be cheaper to cue clubs first.

[Walddk]

goobers, on May 29 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

Why does 4♣ bid deny spade control? If partner wants to show both black suit controls, it would actually be cheaper to cue clubs first.

You must have missed something. It is cheaper to bid 3♠ than 4♣. Therefore, 4♣ denies a spade control.

Roland

[goobers]

But if I cue 3♠, partner cues 4♦ and now I have to cue clubs at the 5 level

[Walddk]

ArcLight, on May 29 2007, 05:38 PM, said:

1♥ - 3♥
4♣ - 4♦ =
>>>>>the 4♣ bid denies a spade control. What does the 4♦ bid show?
Does it show the ♣ control, and has nothing to do with ♦?

In my book it confirms a spade control (else 4♥), but it doesn't promise a diamond control. It's not a real problem, because opener has one. He can't be interested in slam without controls in two side suits.

Roland

[Walddk]

goobers, on May 29 2007, 07:30 PM, said:

But if I cue 3♠, partner cues 4♦ and now I have to cue clubs at the 5 level

No you don't. You can venture keycard ask if partner has the diamond control you don't have if you have a club control yourself. That will obviously promise a club control once partner denies one.

Roland

[hrothgar]

Here's one issue that you might want to consider:

A lot of the best material about 1st / 2nd round cue bidding is the various example hands from the old books on Blue Club. One of the first things that will (probably) come to your attention is that fact that 4NT was not used as Roman Key Card Blackwood during cue bidding auctions. Instead, a 4NT bid was (essentially) dynamic. The specific meaning of a 4NT bid varied dramatically depending on the preceding auction.

To some extent, it was easier for the Italians to dispense with RKCB. They were using a limited opening system with fairly disciplined opening bids. In many cases, they already had a good idea about hand strength. They also used control showing responses over strong club openings which carry much of the same information as a Blackwood response.

These days, the Italians seem to be making extensive use of Turbo. Here, it can be argued that the Turbo sequence dispenses with the need for 4NT as Keycard.

[SoTired]

Blackwood got a bad rep from overuse. But Blackwood (esp RKC) is excellent in combo with mixed q-bids. Last Train and (un)Serious 3N also come in handy.

You q-bid 1st or 2nd round controls cheapest first, skipping suits where you don't have either. As soon as a suit is skipped and the partner notices that a suit has two quick losers, that partner signs off. As soon as one partner notices all side suits are covered, that partner may bid Blackwood (RKC) for an ace double-check.

BTW "cheapest" does not mean "lowest ranked". For example, 3S is cheaper than 4C.

Last Train is the bid just below the signoff and means "I am still interested in slam, but I may or may not have this specific q-bid." It is used when you run out of space. For example: (opps silent) 1D 1S; 3S 4D. In this auction, 4D was mixed q-bid. 4D denied a club control. If opener, also, does not have a club control, opener will sign-off in 4S, ending the auction. If opener has both a club control and a heart control, opener can bid 4N. But what if opener has a club control, but no heart control. Opener could bid 5C, but that is past 4N and a heart control has not been verified. The 5-level may not be safe. Here is where Last Train comes in. Opener bids 4H, Last Train (see quote above). Since opener is still interested in slam, opener must have a club control. So if responder has a heart control, responder can bid 4N. If responder does not have a heart control, responder signs-off in 4S.

Another useful bid is (un)Serious 3N. It is used in a GF, major suit agreed auction when 3N cannot be a suggestion for a final contract. It shows (denies) extra strength. This prevents exploring slam when the partnership does not enough combined strength for slam.

[Walddk]

In this context it may be useful to read about the Turbo convention ...

http://homepage.mac....oConvention.pdf

It has been somewhat modified by the Italian stars of today, but in general principles nothing has changed since the days of Eugenio Chiaradia and Benito Garozzo.

Roland

[han]

hrothgar, on May 29 2007, 12:47 PM, said:

Here's one issue that you might want to consider:

A lot of the best material about 1st / 2nd round cue bidding is the various example hands from the old books on Blue Club. One of the first things that will (probably) come to your attention is that fact that 4NT was not used as Roman Key Card Blackwood during cue bidding auctions. Instead, a 4NT bid was (essentially) dynamic. The specific meaning of a 4NT bid varied dramatically depending on the preceding auction.

To some extent, it was easier for the Italians to dispense with RKCB. They were using a limited opening system with fairly disciplined opening bids. In many cases, they already had a good idea about hand strength. They also used control showing responses over strong club openings which carry much of the same information as a Blackwood response.

These days, the Italians seem to be making extensive use of Turbo. Here, it can be argued that the Turbo sequence dispenses with the need for 4NT as Keycard.

Instead of trying to learn from the methods that were used many decades ago one could try to ask why those methods were discarded. I don't think that the old Italians were on to something when they decided not to use RKC. Maybe the fact that the current Italian players use turbo is a sign that it is still very important to know how many keycards you have?

Although the old Blue team were among the top players of their time (if not the top players), I bet that the slam bidding of the current Italian team is far superior.

[kenrexford]

One resource that is sure to not impress is apparently starting in the ACBL Bulletin this month, where it is advised to cuebid something partner will like (rather than cuebidding according to actual rules and logic).

From experience, I can assure you that there are scant resources on cuebidding outside of the three sources listed earlier in this post. Probably the best resource is the BBO archives, frankly. There is a ton of material scattered around this site.

Finding pitfalls in Italian (not "Aces First") cuebidding is not any easy task, as it requires you to identify which variety of "Italian Cuebidding" is used. Is 3NT serious, non-serious, a trump cuebid, a non-cuebid, or what? Is Last Train used? Is the cuebidding mandatory or discretionary? What alternatives (jumps, etc.) are available? What initiation alternatives (e.g., Jacoby 2NT, Bergen, Swiss, Splinters, et.c) tailor later bids? This is not an easy task, finding the pitfalls.

The one auction raised by Arclight is a classic example. 1♥-P-3♥-P-4♣-P-4♦ is not simple to analyze. There are many unknowns. Is 3♥ a limit raise? If so, was there an alternative limit raise route? What kind of limit raise (shape? Count?)? Was it preemptive, or forcing? If forcing, was there a weaker option?

What are the limitations on 1♥? Precision, or standard range?

What would 3NT by Opener show?

Is the partnership using Last Train to Clarkesville?

Is Opener's 4♣ call a strict cuebid (denies a spade cue), or a "pattern cuebid" (showing some pattern), or maybe a COV cuebid (1.5+ controls in clubs)?

Does the partnership have rules about impossible denials (later proven impossible)?

The 4♦ cue might show a spade value, if the 4♣ cue was strict, but not necessarily, if such restrictions are not present (pattern cue or COV cue). Or, perhaps 4♦ does not promise a spade value if the partnership for some reason must commit to the five-level if slam is sought in this auction.

None of this is governed and defined by simply using Ace-or-King Cuebids, any more than "playing 2/1 GF" allows you to determine what any calls will mean.

[jmc]

ArcLight, on May 29 2007, 09:38 AM, said:

Justin (an anyone else) - are there any articles/books on this style of bidding, other than:

Ron Klingers Cue Bididng
Ken Rexfords Cue Bidding
Belladonnas article on cue bidding

Does someone have links for these references handy? Are they all available free online or are they purchasable books? Info appreciated.

jmc

[hrothgar]

Hannie, on May 29 2007, 10:41 PM, said:

Instead of trying to learn from the methods that were used many decades ago one could try to ask why those methods were discarded. I don't think that the old Italians were on to something when they decided not to use RKC. Maybe the fact that the current Italian players use turbo is a sign that it is still very important to know how many keycards you have?

I'm not saying that knowing the total number of keycards is unimportant.

I am suggesting that if you have an auction like

1♣ - 1♠
2♥ - 3♥
3♠ - 4♣
4N

where 1♣ is strong and 1♠ promises 3 controls, using 4NT to ask for keycards is superfluous.

In a similar fashion, a turbo auction is designed to clarify the number of controls at a relatively low level. (I seem to recall some examples where Turbo kicked in at 4♣ or 4♦)

Here once again, using 4NT a redundant keycard ask doesn't make much sense to me.

I'd be curious to know whether Italian pairs that use Turbo also have have a keycard ask available later in the turbo auctions.

[kgr]

jmc, on May 30 2007, 12:39 AM, said:

ArcLight, on May 29 2007, 09:38 AM, said:

Justin (an anyone else) - are there any articles/books on this style of bidding, other than:

Ron Klingers Cue Bididng
Ken Rexfords Cue Bidding
Belladonnas article on cue bidding

Does someone have links for these references handy? Are they all available free online or are they purchasable books? Info appreciated.

jmc

see Cue-bidding to Slam by Claudio Petroncini and Georgio Belladonna (.zip file with .doc file inside) on http://geocities.com/ast_sg/