[straube]

I held AKx Axxxx Qxx Qx and opened 1N (14-16)

1N-2H, 2S-3H-?

3S would set spades
3N would suggest a contract

Of course I want to agree hearts and cooperate for slam. My minor suit queens aren't helpful but I have good support for partner's suits.

If we used regular cue bids, I don't have anything to cue bid.

If instead I'd held KQx Jxxxx Axx Ax and we used weakness cue bids (bid a suit we don't have control) then I'd also have a problem.

I've been wondering how it would work if after a GF and suit agreement we used the first step as a generic slam try. So 4C here would be that try.

If instead (some other hand) we bid 1N-2H, 2S-2N, 3H-3S then 3N would be that try. We'd been playing nonserious 3N. I guess instead, we would be using step 1 as a generic slam try and other steps as courtesy cue bids in case partner held slam interest. And then I'm wondering whether it would be better to show control or lack thereof.

Say after 1N-2H, 2S-3H...
.....4C-slam try
.....4D-heart fit, lack diamond control
.....4H-heart fit, have diamond control

Focusing on a diamond control seems silly but it may be easier to remember than something else.

Any comment?

[sfi]

This is the sort of hand a Last Train 4D was made for. Even without an agreement to do so, I would try 4D and expect partner to realise I may have to fudge a control somehow.

[pescetom]

I don't see what's wrong with playing that if you do not superaccept spades and partner shows hearts then:
3S would set spades
3N would suggest a contract
4C/D/S would be control showing cuebids setting hearts.
No need to waste 4D or tell fibs about controls.

[straube]

So is Last Train on even if a step has been skipped to get there? In this particular auction would Last Train folks play..,

3S- sets spades
3N-suggests a contract
4C-club control
4D-Last Train, no club control, nothing about diamond or spade control
4H-suggests a contract

[sfi]

 straube, on 2019-August-31, 15:24, said:

So is Last Train on even if a step has been skipped to get there? In this particular auction would Last Train folks play..,

3S- sets spades
3N-suggests a contract
4C-club control
4D-Last Train, no club control, nothing about diamond or spade control
4H-suggests a contract

Exactly. Last Train is always 4M-1 in a cuebidding situation and it allows the person to express interest in slam without committing to the 5 level.

[fromageGB]

This is of course the problem with last train. It could be taken as heart agreement and the control (or lack of it according to style) in diamonds. You do therefore not have a diamond cue available if you play last train.

Playing positive cues, a bid of 4♦ is misleading, or a lie, but it is your judgement that this lie is better than a 4♥ bid. Partner will not go overboard without a good hand, as you have already in this example limited yourself with the opening, and aces can be checked. Nevertheless, without a last train agreement, I think 4♣ is a better lie, as it gives an uncertain responder some wriggle-room. He can cue 4♦ and you can then suggest a signoff with 4♥. A slam-certain responder with the diamond control would ace and king ask.

[fromageGB]

Those who don't like mixing their metaphors would never go overboard using last train.

[hrothgar]

 straube, on 2019-August-31, 04:58, said:

Any comment?

You have 14 cards in your hand (I'll assume that you're 3=5=2=2)

Given your agreements, I'm not sure that you have that good a choice.

I am tempted to fake a 4!C cue bid.

If partner can't bid Diamonds, you'll be able to stp cheap.

[straube]

 hrothgar, on 2019-September-03, 05:35, said:

You have 14 cards in your hand (I'll assume that you're 3=5=2=2)

Thanks. Good catch, but 13 cards, 3532.

[Kungsgeten]

I guess that the bidding here is natural and that responder has shown a GF with both majors (5-5 or 5-4)? Here are a few ideas, but some of them are probably too specific to this particular sequence.

1. "Lissabon slam tries"

I haven't heard of the Lissabon bridge convention outside of Swedish system notes, but its a principle where a minor suit bid show a corresponding major, and vice versa. So clubs = hearts, diamonds = spades, hearts = clubs, spades = diamonds. We have a few sequences where we can not set the trump suit naturally below 4M, so then we use Lissabon. 4C would set hearts, and 4D would set spades.

In the sequence you mention this might not be necessary. Like you say it seems natural for 3S to set spades, and 4m to set hearts. If you do play Lissabon, then perhaps 3S could be a double fit.

2. 3S is spades or NT

So here 3S would say that you either have a spade fit, or that you want to play 3NT. Responder would normally bid 3NT, unless too strong. Opener can then correct to a cue-bid or 4S. The idea here would be that a direct 3NT sets hearts.

A real downside here is that a 3NT call sounds so natural

3. 4C does not guarantee a club control

You could agree that if a suit fit can not be established at the three-level, then 4C is just a slam-try and doesn't say anything about clubs. An example of this is in the old Swedish standard system (four card majors) in this sequence:

1H-1S; 3D (forcing, but could stop in 3H)
3H = Non-forcing.
3S = Nat GF.
3NT = To play.
4C = Heart slam try.
4D = Diamond slam try.

A strange thing in your sequence is what the 4D call should mean... The easiest would probably be that it guarantees a diamond control and denies control of clubs.

4. Give up on stopping in 3NT

If responder has shown 5-5 majors here, maybe you don't need to be able to stop in 3NT? Sure if you open a lot of 6322 or 5422 hands you might not have a fit. If you do this then 3NT could agree hearts, like in version 2, or you could use it to show a hand with good values in the majors, but no minor control (like your problem hand, but not agreeing on a suit yet).

[straube]

Never heard of Lissabon but we use something like it elsewhere. Thanks for sharing that.

Well I posted that hand mostly as an example for a common situation (I think) which is being occasionally ill-served by either positive cue bids or negative cue bids. With so little room available, I sometimes wonder if it's best to focus on outside controls. For example this hand...

1N-2H, 2S-3H and responder wants to agree hearts. So let's say we play Last Train...
.....4C-a club cue
.....4D-Last Train

So we use those precious two bids for something very useful (Last Train) and something rather random (club control or lack thereof). There must be a better way.

I've a friend who uses trump cue bids instead of Serious or Nonserious 3N. For example after 1S-2C, 2S-3S....
.....3N-shows KQxxx or better (or maybe it denies this, I forgot)
.....4C-denies KQxxx or better, shows first or second round control of clubs
.....etc

Had responder been the first able to bid 3N, his 3N would show or deny Qxx or better.

My friend is very convinced that this trump cue is better than Serious/Nonserious. But maybe one could arrange as

3N-generic slam try
4C-trump cue
4D-diamond cue
4H-heart cue
4S-other

Or maybe after such an auction as 1N-2D, 2H-4C where we have two bids available...

4D-generic slam try
4H-trump cue

Maybe if one has shown a 2-suiter opposite a balanced hand and you have 3 spaces....

S1-generic slam try
S2 trump cue
S3 cue for the second suit

Nice to avoid 2 losers in an outside suit, but it seems to me that in tight quarters the priorities are having a generic slam try (akin to Nonserious or Last Train or whatever), a trump cue, and a cue of an important side suit in that order.

Btw, do folks who play Serious or Nonserious 3N use (at the same time) a Last Train bid? I would think not because it would be probably one too many generic slam tries. Idk

[DinDIP]

Trump cues were popular in Australia in the late 1970s and 1980s but are rarely used here now. Their use declined dramatically as RKCB became popular. There is a series of articles on them (by Klinger, IIRC, based on work done by Paul Lavings and Andrew Reiner) in Australian Bridge issues from that era, and one in The Bridge World by Ian McCance. I strongly prefer non-serious to trump cues in GF auctions where both hands have a wide range: some distinction in strength is valuable; knowing about trump strength typically much less so.

Trump cues can be useful in auctions where non-serious is of little value (like
1♣-1♥
1♠-3♠
where responder is tightly limited and opener can show slam interest), but only if your agreement is that 3NT would not be natural, a choice of contracts. However, you might want to use 3NT here as a waiting bid, hoping responder can show a control in clubs, perhaps as part of a "relay cue" style where 4♣ would show a C control and deny a D control, 4♦ would show controls in clubs and diamonds but deny one in hearts, etc. Not clear to me that playing multiple styles of cue-bidding depending on the earlier auction won't lead to an oops, depending on partnership memory load.

And it can make sense to use both non-serious and Last Train in the same auction. After
1♠-2♦
2♠-3♠
3NT-4♦
4♥ would just show the club control that responder was looking for and say nothing about a H control (or honour, if that's your style).

[pescetom]

Even when RKCB does not work well, Turbo looks to be a better mousetrap than Trump cues.

[straube]

My friend feels that trump cues are better than serious/nonserious. For sake of argument, let's postulate that serious/nonserious is better (he did give me a list of example hands that suggested the reverse). My question is whether trump cues are better than focusing on an arbitrary side control. I.e. instead of one or the other, why not both?

S1 nonserious (or serious)
S2 trump cues
S3 second suit cues
S4 natural cues

I understand that RKC lets you find a hole in the trump suit, but then you're at the 5-level and commited to play the trump suit with possibly two losers in that suit.

btw, I'm looking for something that stepwise could start at the point of 3S or 3N or 4D or whatever because GF with suit agreement occurs at different places.

[pescetom]

 straube, on 2019-September-04, 07:50, said:

btw, I'm looking for something that stepwise could start at the point of 3S or 3N or 4D or whatever because GF with suit agreement occurs at different places.

I didn't want to enter this discussion in sliding tackle because I realise that our control-bidding methods are quite different. But as you say you're looking for something that works from suit agreement onwards, I suggest you also evaluate an alternative strategy which does this seamlessly and economically: nonserious + indifferentiated control-bids + Turbo.

[straube]

 pescetom, on 2019-September-05, 09:07, said:

I didn't want to enter this discussion in sliding tackle because I realise that our control-bidding methods are quite different. But as you say you're looking for something that works from suit agreement onwards, I suggest you also evaluate an alternative strategy which does this seamlessly and economically: nonserious + indifferentiated control-bids + Turbo.

I'm interested. Would you explain your method please?

[johnu]

 pescetom, on 2019-August-31, 06:18, said:

I don't see what's wrong with playing that if you do not superaccept spades and partner shows hearts then:
3S would set spades
3N would suggest a contract
4C/D/S would be control showing cuebids setting hearts.
No need to waste 4D or tell fibs about controls.

Partner may not see the humor of a 4♠ cue bid setting hearts if they were just trying to get to the best game contract.

[pescetom]

 johnu, on 2019-September-05, 18:17, said:

Partner may not see the humor of a 4♠ cue bid setting hearts if they were just trying to get to the best game contract.

Partner can bid 3♠ to set spades and then bid 4♠ over any reply if he really wants to stop in that game unilaterally.

[pescetom]

 straube, on 2019-September-05, 12:00, said:

I'm interested. Would you explain your method please?

Modern Italian slam seeking: Blue-team style indifferentiated first/second level control-bids supplemented by nonserious 3NT and Turbo (which investigates number of keycards and possession of the Queen within the control-bid sequence). The bible is "Slam a tempo di cue-bid" by Giorgio Belladonna and Claudio Petroncini (1990), still around in paperback. Maybe someone here can point to a book or some notes in English rather than Italian.