[relknes]

I have been curious recently about the posability of reversing the meaning of cuebids. In other words, the first cuebid of of a suit would show 2 quick loosers while skipping over it would show first or second round control.
There are a few reasons that this seems atractive to me. First, you will never need gadgets like "last train" since you won't have a desire to show something in a suit that was skipped over. Second, it makes it more economical to show multiple controls (which you will usually have in a slam auction). Basically, the more cramped the bidding space, the more sense it seems to make.
There are 2 disadvantages that I can think of. First, it seems like it might be easier for the opponents to find a good spot to double for either lead direction or identifying a sacrifice. Second, it could make it easier for the opponents to find their opening lead when you sign off in game. In normal (positive) cuebidding, when partner skips over 2 suits and you sign off in game, they have to guess which of those suits to lead. With anti-cuebids, if you bid a suit and partner signs off, they can be prety confident about leading that suit.
Do these disadvantages make it unplayable?

[glen]

If only we had an expert on cuebidding who was a forum member not too under the weather to answer this.

[aguahombre]

I think it is called scanning, but we never tried it.

[EricK]

This is similar to the old idea of slam asking bids. i.e you bid the suit where you wanted partner to tell you what controls he had in it. If he had control, especially first round control, his various answers would tell you about other controls as well.

They used to be all the rage, so I hear. Perhaps someone who is old enough to remember them can say exactly why they went out of fashion.

[S2000magic]

I can imagine instances where control asking bids would be more useful than cue bids; two that spring to mind are after a super-strong opening (e.g., 2♣ in SAYC) and a weak response, or after a preemptive opening.

I had a hand a few weeks ago where I opened 3♠; we were cold for a slam that depended on my club void facinf my partner's ♣ x x x. He had the ♠ A, the ♥ A K, and the ♦ A K, so all he needed to know to bid the slam was whether I had a club control. A possible auction would have been:

2♠ - 5♣*
5♠** - 6♠

* Asking for club control
** 1^st step: no control, 2^nd step, 2^nd round control, 3^rd step, 1^st round control

(Note that I was playing with a rank beginner, so he wouldn't have understood the concept of asking bids, and he was too timid to bid more that 4♠; frankly, I feel fortunate that he didn't pass 3♠.)

[ArtK78]

EricK, on 2011-December-14, 12:58, said:

This is similar to the old idea of slam asking bids. i.e you bid the suit where you wanted partner to tell you what controls he had in it. If he had control, especially first round control, his various answers would tell you about other controls as well.

They used to be all the rage, so I hear. Perhaps someone who is old enough to remember them can say exactly why they went out of fashion.

There are asking bids within the full RKCB structure advocated by Eddie Kantar in his books on RKCB.

[Fluffy]

I use anti-cuebids afeter 4M openings, but that´s the only one

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2011-December-14, 15:17, said:

There are asking bids within the full RKCB structure advocated by Eddie Kantar in his books on RKCB.

These are at a pretty high level, though, since you have already bid Blackwood. I think the OP is looking for something at a lower level.

[guido]

Spiral Scan from some of the later iterations of Romex did something like this in a more sophisticated way. I think Ultimate Club used a fairly straight fowared version of negative cuebidding.

[inquiry]

The term I use for this is Denial cue-bid. Here is one place that I use them and they come in extra handy.

I have a convention known as misiry. It shows a strong two suiter, when opener conventionally shows his number of losers and his two suits, responder's first bid is often a denial cue-bid in one of the two side suits. If this bid bypasses the cheapest of the two side suits, it carries two messages" control of the cheaper suit, no control in the bid suit. if it is the cheapest cue-bid, it carries nearly the same message.... no control in the lower suit and probably a control in the upper suit. Why?

Opener can try to sign off opposite such a denial cue-bid if either of these statements are true:
a. your side has at least two losers off the top in the denied suit.
b. any card (cover) partner holds in the other "off-suit" is not useful.

IF responder has sufficient cover=cards regardless of opener's signoff attempt he bids on. This use of denial cue-bids packs a lot more information than a simple cue-bid can do in this highly specialized situation. Also playing number of losers, you can use an anti-josephine to ask for grand slam if not holding the queen of trumps....

example, parnter shows a four loser hand, and you have three sure covers, and a known 10 card trump fit. If one of your losers is the "queen of trumps" your trump holding will "cover" for the missing queen thus one of the losers. Playing romex many many years ago, i had several nice reverse josephine auctions. That is a denial asking bid kind of thing.

I think such well defined uses of anti-cuebidding can be quite useful.

[the hog]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-14, 12:27, said:

I think it is called scanning, but we never tried it.

Scanning or as it is more correctly known Denial Cue Bidding, is frequently a part of relay systems. You look at suits in order of length and rank if equal length. To stop shows no hon of the type for which you are looking - Ace + King, or AKQ if using control points.
There are a number of other methods which may even save space and be more effective. eg in a 5431 shape.
step all = all in one suit or something in all
step 2 all in suits 1 + 2
step 3 all in suits 1 + 3
step 4 = all in 2 + 3

[Zelandakh]

As Ben says this method is usually called Denial Cue Bids although it is really a mix of cue bids and asking bids in practise. I personally think this method is far superior to normal cue bidding for "normal" players who do not have the time or inclination to get into all of the subtleties required for expert-level cue bidding sequences. Combined with a Frivolous 3NT you get a highly accurate scheme that requires few additional rules. Without Frivolous or Serious 3NT it does not work so well because you cannot make a slam try below game with controls in all suits. You need to know you can go beyond game with controls in every suit when you start the cues.

One area where you get a big advantage with this method is when you have a hand that is good enough for a slam drive but want to know if partner has a control in a certain suit before asking for key cards. Now you can mastermind a little and continue with RKCB (or whatever) even over partner's sign off. Of course you can do similar tricks with standard cue bidding too but sometimes it is not easy to get such an exact message.

The disadvantages you state are not such a big deal. In standard cue bidding it is also usually pretty obvious when the opps have stopped because they lack a control in a given suit. The lead-directing double turns out to be a plus for the method - in standard they can double with the AQ sitting over the king, in denial cue bidding the AQ will be behind the king.

If you do take up this method then it is very important to discuss how cue bids work at the 5 level or in competition. Denial cue bids also work here but it is a little more complicated. For example, if you played that 5M over their 4M opening shows first round control before then you can convert to this denying first round control. There are some advantages to this but it does need to be discussed in a little details to iron out all the wrinkles. Similarly for 5 level cue bids. One option is that cue bidding in a suit where you showed a control now denies a second card from the top 3 and cue bidding in a suit where you denied a control now denies 3rd round control. Another option is to simply use 5 level bids as Exclusion and assume that key cards will be shown on any hand with serious slam interest and controls in every suit. The important thing is that you agree something!

Overall, I would recommend DCBs to any intermediates and advanced that are willing to try something slightly different. It is not necessary to play them in conjunction with a relay system.

[Mbodell]

When we do it (denial cue bids) in a relay system bidding the suit shows either 0 or 2 of the top 2 cards, skipping it shows 1 of the top 2. On later passes bidding shows 0, skipping shows 1. We sometimes have the option to skip A and have the first round show 0 or 2 of K and Q, and other times have the option to have bidding it show 0 and skipping to show 1+. It seems to work pretty well in the relay context.

[fromageGB]

As Zelandakh, I think it works fine with a normal simple natural system. (Well, as good as simple positive cue bidding works.)

I don't think anti-cues solve a problem shared also with the normal "bidding controls upwards". Let's say you are in a spade game force, both hands are unlimited by the bidding, but neither hand has sufficient strength or trick source to unilaterally ace ask (ie not "super-serious"). Both hands are say 3 HCP stronger than they could be (ie "serious") and you cue bid to express your "seriousness", bypassing the "non-serious 3NT". The idea is that you are telling partner your strength, so that after cue bidding your controls, with no suit uncovered, HE is in a position to go on for ace asking if he has undisclosed extra strength, too. If he is minimum, he stops in game. Unilateral super-serious hands are easy, the cooperative "serious opposite serious" not so. Suppose you have good controls in both minors but not hearts...

With normal bidding controls upwards you bypass 3NT to show extra strength, and cue 4♣. Partner has controls in hearts alone, outside trumps, so bids 4♥. You now know all suits are covered, but you are not strong enough to ace ask unilaterally, if partner is minimum. You have no choice but to bid 4♠. But when you bid 4♠ he will think diamonds are uncovered, so he will pass even if he has that undisclosed strength. From his side of the table, he knows you have extra strength, he knows he has extra strength, but he can't move. And he had to bid 4♥ rather than ace ask at that point, because diamonds were unguarded. Normal upwards cues fall down at this point.

Do anti-cues fare any better? You have the minors, so you serious anti-cue in 4♥. Parther has that control, so on the original hand if he is serious he can now go on to ace ask. But this time he is minimum, so even with the control he just bids 4♠. You, on the other hand, are now "super-serious". But as you think he does not have that heart stop you reluctantly pass. So there is a problem with this method, too.

What I am trying at the moment is a sort of combination : pinpointing the possibly missing control by making a serious cue bid in the suit beneath. In other words, the first serious cue shows in addition to the one bid, any lower controls. The bidding now goes 4♦. Partner without hearts bids 4♠. Partner with hearts and not serious simply bids 4♥ and I can ace ask if I am super-serious. Partner with hearts and serious himself will not bid 4♥ but will ace ask - if he has the ability to count to 13 tricks. If his hand is such that it can only count to 12 he can bid 4♥ but then go on if I stop in game.

By the way, this method means that the first serious cue of 4♥ shows I have controls in all suits, but want partner to ace ask as I am just serious and not super-serious.

I am sure there are other methods of doing it, but anti-cues themselves are not the answer for me. And I need something simple, that my partners and I can remember.

[relknes]

Zelandakh, on 2011-December-15, 02:47, said:

As Ben says this method is usually called Denial Cue Bids although it is really a mix of cue bids and asking bids in practise. I personally think this method is far superior to normal cue bidding for "normal" players who do not have the time or inclination to get into all of the subtleties required for expert-level cue bidding sequences. Combined with a Frivolous 3NT you get a highly accurate scheme that requires few additional rules. Without Frivolous or Serious 3NT it does not work so well because you cannot make a slam try below game with controls in all suits. You need to know you can go beyond game with controls in every suit when you start the cues.

One area where you get a big advantage with this method is when you have a hand that is good enough for a slam drive but want to know if partner has a control in a certain suit before asking for key cards. Now you can mastermind a little and continue with RKCB (or whatever) even over partner's sign off. Of course you can do similar tricks with standard cue bidding too but sometimes it is not easy to get such an exact message.

Thanks, everyone, for your replies. It seems from people's imput like the idea itself is workable, even though I havn't been able to find any info online about it (except for "spiral scan" which is a one-sided version that works with step responses).
I had been planning on using 3NT for one of three things, Serious NT, Frivolous NT, or denying 2 of the top 3 trump. So my next question is: which of the three works best with this style of (anti-)cuebidding?
With controls in every suit you can still actually start cuebidding, they simply start looking a bit more like asking bids than cuebids. You can bid a suit where you only have one control. If they sign off, showing no controls there, you can push on and ask for an ace in a second suit, or rebid that same suit to ask if they have the queen or a doubleton.
For instance, with ♠AQ754 ♥AJ93 ♦KQ97 ♣void, if spades were agreed at the three level then you might continue with 4♥. If partner signed off, you could continue with 5♦, and partner would sign off at 5♠ without the diamond ace or bid 5♥ with the diamond ace but with three heart loosers, bid 5NT with the diamond ace and third round control of hearts but no top spade honor, or cue bid something at the 6 level with the diamond ace, third round control of hearts, and one of the top 3 spades.

[relknes]

fromageGB, on 2011-December-15, 10:46, said:

What I am trying at the moment is a sort of combination : pinpointing the possibly missing control by making a serious cue bid in the suit beneath. In other words, the first serious cue shows in addition to the one bid, any lower controls.

So what would you do if you have, say, diamonds and hearts, but not clubs?

[kenrexford]

My gut tells me that pure denial cuebids (which are different from scans, btw) would probably be as economical as control cuebids on a general note. They might have a result of inducing more lead-directive doubles, which could be an advantage because it actually would allow for more complexity, adding in meanings for pass and redouble.

However, the stacking effect might be counter-intuitive. For example, a skip of a lot of cues with control cuebidding means that one partner can swoop up a lot of denials with one bid but must slowly cue controls that are touching. With denials, a person would slowly swoop up a lot of showing of controls but must slowly cue touching holes. This stacking seems to make denial cues favor decision-making for the weaker hand, whereas control bidding favors decision-making for the stronger hand. That is, unless the control bidding is more asking than telling, if that makes sense.

So, whereas I think that the available space to show stuff is probably equal, the person to whom stuff is shown most might be the wrong person more often with denial cues.

[benlessard]

The expert defense to anti cuebid is a lead directing X show the suit under or the one that a control is implied.

3D-(P)--4S(RKC in D asking for S control) ---??

X for a spade lead is exactly what the opponents want. the X should be used for AQ of H. If you want to improve on slam bidding learn Spiral Scan. I completly lost faith in cuebidding for slam.

[1eyedjack]

I never really got sold on these denial cues. It has some merit I think if only the one partner cues while the other relays. Otherwise you could get into the situation where one partner has the ace of Spades and Diamonds, the other having the aces of Clubs and hearts, and the auction goes something like

4C ("I don't have the ace of clubs")
4D ("I don't have the ace of diamonds")
4H ("I don't have the ace of hearts")
4S ("I don't have the ace of spades")

And you have just taken out an entire level of bidding and not conveyed any information whatsoever. In summary, if you bid a suit to deny the ace, then if partner has that ace you are not telling him anything useful. If on the other hand you bid the suits in which you hold the aces, then you can be reasonably sure that partner does not also hold that ace so that the act of showing it is guaranteed to be of value to partner.

The plus side of these denial cues arises when you have a number of touching aces that you can show in a single cue bid via bypassing all of those suits. Also the high the level of bid, the stronger the hand tends to be. So far I have yet to be persuaded that these benefits are worth it.

[WellSpyder]

1eyedjack, on 2011-December-16, 08:23, said:

...you could get into the situation where one partner has the ace of Spades and Diamonds, the other having the aces of Clubs and hearts, and the auction goes something like

4C ("I don't have the ace of clubs")
4D ("I don't have the ace of diamonds")
4H ("I don't have the ace of hearts")
4S ("I don't have the ace of spades")

And you have just taken out an entire level of bidding and not conveyed any information whatsoever.

I think you are misunderstanding the idea, here. The conversation would mean something more like the following:

4C ("I don't have control of clubs")
4D ("I do - otherwise I would just sign off - but I don't have control of diamonds")
4H ("I can handle diamonds - otherwise I would just sign off - but I don't control the hearts")
etc