[Trinidad]

beatrix45, on 2014-September-30, 23:45, said:

Etaion Shurdlu. Like it or not, bridge bidding is a language. No matter how good or bad your ideas may be, you can't just make it up as you go along as it pleases you. The 2/1 approach goes to extreme efforts to create an extra round of bidding for cue bidding or some other form of slam investigation. I certainly cannot say that coded responses and/or relays might not someday turn out to be useful and accepted by everyone, but right now you gotta sprechen die lingo.

Beatrix,

Ken Rexford is certainly known for revolutionary ideas in cuebidding.

However, the explanation that he gave above is not revolutionary whatsoever. It is the standard way to cuebid when you use mixed cuebids (i.e. cueing second and first round controls). As Ken points out, it is all based on the straightforward idea that you stop searching for a slam when you know that there can't be one: You sign off in game when a suit is not controled and, therefore, if you do not sign off in game, you control the suits that partner denied.

This principle is not different from game bidding. If you know that you should be in a partscore, you stop investigating game. Therefore, if you are investigating game, you have to have the values for it.

Rik

[rhm]

Trinidad, on 2014-October-01, 01:14, said:

Beatrix,

Ken Rexford is certainly known for revolutionary ideas in cuebidding.

However, the explanation that he gave above is not revolutionary whatsoever. It is the standard way to cuebid when you use mixed cuebids (i.e. cueing second and first round controls). As Ken points out, it is all based on the straightforward idea that you stop searching for a slam when you know that there can't be one: You sign off in game when a suit is not controled and, therefore, if you do not sign off in game, you control the suits that partner denied.

This principle is not different from game bidding. If you know that you should be in a partscore, you stop investigating game. Therefore, if you are investigating game, you have to have the values for it.

Rik

Maybe so.
But North did not cuebid 4♣ even though he had club control, did he not?
So North was not using mixed cuebids.

Rainer Herrmann

[mcphee]

North did not manage the hand well and clearly has a serious try.

[rhm]

whereagles, on 2014-September-21, 03:04, said:

very tough hand? well, this is the sort of thing serious 3NT was made for.. it's very easy with that gadget

If it was so easy why the misunderstanding then?
This is what you always hear from people falling in love with a crutch, contrary to what happens at the table.

For us simple souls the answer is easy:

You do not start cue bidding unless you are suitable for slam and partner opposite an unlimited opening is supposed to cooperate below game unless his hand is very unsuitable for slam.
So South has no reason not to bid 4♥ with two bullets and the queen of trumps since he can still pass 4♠.

Seems to me a very easy to bid slam without this serious / non-serious nonsense.

Rainer Herrmann

[kenrexford]

rhm, on 2014-October-01, 01:56, said:

Maybe so.
But North did not cuebid 4♣ even though he had club control, did he not?
So North was not using mixed cuebids.

Rainer Herrmann

But, by Beatrix's comments , she was.

[beatrix45]

kenrexford, on 2014-October-01, 04:18, said:

But, by Beatrix's comments , she was.

Harumph! I first experimented with cue bidding aces and kings equivalently in 1970 when I took up the Blue Team Club system for a time. It worked better than you might think, but it certainly had its drawbacks.

Better is to have certain broad guidelines as to when a cue bid shows an ace - eg. when made by a strong hand versus when it may be as little as an unsupported king - when made by a weak hand. Either way, Dorothy Hayden was spot on when she said that good slam bidding is conversational. It is never mechanical. Serious and non-serious 3NT are a wise addition to the 2/1 tool box, if you agree how to play them.

On this hand, N bypassing 4♣ holding a stiff Q in partner's suit makes common sense to me. The 4♦ bid should very likely show the ace, but it is just a very mild gesture toward slam. This does not excuse South from not bidding 4♥ with a very good hand for slam. Subsequently, South can take the bit holding two aces and QJx of trumps.

[kenrexford]

beatrix45, on 2014-October-02, 10:30, said:

Harumph! I first experimented with cue bidding aces and kings equivalently in 1970 when I took up the Blue Team Club system for a time. It worked better than you might think, but it certainly had its drawbacks.

Better is to have certain broad guidelines as to when a cue bid shows an ace - eg. when made by a strong hand versus when it may be as little as an unsupported king - when made by a weak hand. Either way, Dorothy Hayden was spot on when she said that good slam bidding is conversational. It is never mechanical. Serious and non-serious 3NT are a wise addition to the 2/1 tool box, if you agree how to play them.

On this hand, N bypassing 4♣ holding a stiff Q in partner's suit makes common sense to me. The 4♦ bid should very likely show the ace, but it is just a very mild gesture toward slam. This does not excuse South from not bidding 4♥ with a very good hand for slam. Subsequently, South can take the bit holding two aces and QJx of trumps.

I find it rather shocking that anyone would try playing canapé systems. I am very much against canapé, as I cannot imagine how it works.

I also do not understand how cuebidding could possibly be "conversational." In fact, I find cuebidding to be somewhat dumb, anyway. I am a firm believer in ranges. Goren's HCP analysis seems to work perfectly fine for me.

[whereagles]

rhm, on 2014-October-01, 02:05, said:

If it was so easy why the misunderstanding then?

In my opinion that's because North didn't use serious when it should have. If 4♦ is mere courtesy, South doesn't want to drive above slam.

But then again, I think standard lore on cuebidding is completely wrong. Shape/strength should come before controls.

[kenrexford]

whereagles, on 2014-October-02, 12:05, said:

In my opinion that's because North didn't use serious when it should have. If 4♦ is mere courtesy, South doesn't want to drive above slam.

But then again, I think standard lore on cuebidding is completely wrong. Shape/strength should come before controls.

I have thought a long time about the issue of whether to focus primarily on shape/strength or primarily on controls. I think that some of the shape/strength people do not appreciate one aspect of the debate, namely that showing controls sometimes has the effect of making shape emerge while showing shape/strength is much less reliable is having controls emerge. As a simple example, knowing that the club suit has no control guarantees 2+ in clubs, which helps to define strength. Also, showing a control in a suit after denying an honor promises a stiff or void and hence tells us about shape. Shape does immediately show "control" in known short suits, but it does not define well xxx versus AKx, for instance. General strength does help define "controls" in a quantitative sense.

Shape/strength, IMO, works best when the starting range is tighter (e.g., strong club systems and a 1-level opening) or when the starting shape considerations are stronger (e.g., canapé with intermediate 2's). The head start means that space is available to fine-tune.

Control bidding is less effective in those situations, IMO, which is why I start initially with shape in those systems, myself. But, standard approaches like 2/1 suffer from wide ranges and quick space consumption. When you have an auction where a 1♠ opening is 10-22 or so, when 2♣ as a response is largely unlimited and does not say much about any real pattern, when Opener might rebid 2♦ or 2♠ as a waiting call, the auction is hampered a lot as to shape and strength. Granted, shape/strength enables a fast catch-up to some degree. But, shape/strength ends up a matter of more quantitative information rather than fit. It takes too long to get to that issue.

When space is really cramped, though, you almost have to revert to shape/strength.

It's sort of like this, IMO. If you have a great development of basic shape and strength early enough, take advantage of you methods, complete the pattern story, and then have space to move onto fit. If you have a terrible shape/strength development early but a lot of space, control bidding has time to mature in the sequence and works wonders, better than shape/strength catch-up. If you have very little space left, quantitative bash is most reliable with a last-ditch statement of strength/shape.

[mikestar13]

If 3NT is serious, 100% North: if this hand doesn't call for a serious 3NT, no hand does. Indeed, closer to 4NT than 4♦.

If the partnership is on a guess whether 3NT or 4♦ is serious, agree on one method or the other, then use a deal generator to create a lot of practice hands....

[aguahombre]

mikestar13, on 2014-October-02, 14:57, said:

If the partnership is on a guess whether 3NT or 4♦ is serious, agree on one method or the other, then use a deal generator to create a lot of practice hands....

I generated a lot of deals in my fertile mind. From that, I concluded that when the hand which will be declarer is making the "serious" call, it should be 3M+1. This allows Responder to cooperate with cheapest control, saving space -- and prevents a bit of leakage when Responder does not want to cooperate.

The contrary to that is when the non-serious courtesy Cue provides leakage in the more frequent cases where Responder is not serious either. So, which is more important ---conserving space when we are probably going for slam, or conserving information when we are not?

I dunno, but I chose.

[beatrix45]

My goodness! The North hand has 17 HCP opposite a 10 HCP (more or less) limit raise. This does not stir one's imagination to start looking for slam. That said, it is a very, very nice 17HCP given the auction. Perfect, it seems to me, for a non-serious advance to 4♦ - one last try. You hit partner with a near perfecto - two round suit aces, QJx in trumps, and the ♦ Queen to boot. Off you go.

You simply cannot mechanically code slam bidding in bridge - there are just not enough words or rounds of bidding.

[aguahombre]

beatrix45, on 2014-October-02, 16:24, said:

My goodness! The North hand has 17 HCP opposite a 10 HCP (more or less) limit raise. This does not stir one's imagination to start looking for slam. That said, it is a very, very nice 17HCP given the auction. Perfect, it seems to me, for a non-serious advance to 4♦ - one last try. You hit partner with a near perfecto - two round suit aces, QJx in trumps, and the ♦ Queen to boot. Off you go.

You simply cannot mechanically code slam bidding in bridge - there are just not enough words or rounds of bidding.

South treated his hand as a game force, not a limit raise. Whether you agree with south's assessment or not, North's hand is serious slammish in context. Cannot imagine where you got the idea that 2/1 doesn't mean 2/1=game forcing.

[MrAce]

aguahombre, on 2014-October-02, 16:40, said:

South treated his hand as a game force, not a limit raise. Whether you agree with south's assessment or not, North's hand is serious slammish in context. Cannot imagine where you got the idea that 2/1 doesn't mean 2/1=game forcing.

I think she meant we had a legit slam try even opposite a limit raise, let alone GF 2/1, by N hand. I may be wrong, of course, after all my English sucks.

[aguahombre]

MrAce, on 2014-October-02, 17:01, said:

I think she meant we had a legit slam try even opposite a limit raise, let alone GF 2/1, by N hand. I may be wrong, of course, after all my English sucks.

If that is what he meant, then either his or my English sucks. If it is mine, I am stuck with no language except my vague familiarity with "street Espanol".

[MrAce]

You may be right. I thought what she said does not make sense if I read it the way you suggest, since OP made it clear that the system is 2/1.

[chasetb]

Beatrix45 said that North wasn't strong enough to make a direct slam try opposite a limit raise. This is hogwash for two reasons:

1.) While we aren't going to use Jacoby 2NT on this hand, they separate the balanced hands into 3 ranges - minimum (11-14 HCP, 12-15 points) / medium (15-17 HCP, 16-18 points) / maximum (18+ HCP, 19+ points). When you are looking for slam, you do much the same. Minimum hands don't make any noise unless partner insists, medium hands make non-serious slam tries, and maximum hands make serious slam tries.

Even a bean counter should count this up as 19+ points. Any hand that has 16-18 points opposite a GF has a mild slam try, 19+ like this hand is SERIOUS about looking for slam, hence SERIOUS 3NT.

2.) Even if South could have had 10-11 HCP, when partner is looking for slam you re-evaluate your hand. If you can remove 3 HCP and 1 control from the hand and still make the same bid, then you are a non-minimum. The fact is, this South has a minimum hand for the 2♣ bid no matter how you look at it. Therefore, South bid it correctly.

North didn't even make the right cuebid, assuming that 3♠ was a mild slam try. If you are declarer, you show either 1st or 2nd round controls. By bidding 4♦, North DENIED any Club control, showing something akin to ♣xx(x). Therefore, South 'knows' that they have 2 Club losers, so signs off.

100% blame to North for missing 2 bites of the apple so to speak, and I am surprised that some people (like her) would say otherwise!

EDIT - For 12 HCP, 4 controls is the most common; the expected value is 3.72 controls. See Expected Controls in a balanced hand. With 18 HCP, however, 8 controls should be 9%, not 19%

[beatrix45]

beatrix45, on 2014-October-02, 16:24, said:

My goodness! The North hand has 17 HCP opposite a 10 HCP (more or less) limit raise. This does not stir one's imagination to start looking for slam. That said, it is a very, very nice 17HCP given the auction. Perfect, it seems to me, for a non-serious advance to 4♦ - one last try. You hit partner with a near perfecto - two round suit aces, QJx in trumps, and the ♦ Queen to boot. Off you go.

You simply cannot mechanically code slam bidding in bridge - there are just not enough words or rounds of bidding.

Oh dear, I am a silly goose who lost track of the bidding. Opposite an unlimited 2/1 response showing clubs and spade support, North probably should offer a serious 3NT, I guess. Having failed to do so, at least 4♦ offers a second chance. Imo., South was still wrong in skipping over a 4♥ cue - after all, North showed extras. He could have bid 4♠ over 3♠.

[Stephen Tu]

beatrix45, on 2014-October-02, 20:58, said:

Oh dear, I am a silly goose who lost track of the bidding. Opposite an unlimited 2/1 response showing clubs and spade support, North probably should offer a serious 3NT, I guess. Having failed to do so, at least 4♦ offers a second chance. Imo., South was still wrong in skipping over a 4♥ cue - after all, North showed extras. He could have bid 4♠ over 3♠.

In my understanding, if playing serious 3nt, then 4♦ does *not* show extras at all, it's a practically mandatory courtesy cue in case South has significant extras. 4♠ would only be bid with absolute garbage. So South with a minimum should not cue in return since opener's could easily be on something like AKxxx Qxx Axxx x . IMO 100% North if serious 3nt is in effect, what the hell kind of hand are you waiting to use it for?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

manudude03, on 2014-September-20, 13:27, said:

---

Spades are agreed.
North isn't supposed to cue a stiff in partner's suit ( ♣ ) , but with
any of the top 3 honors, you are allowed to with the Italian cuebids..... the ♣Q just happens to be stiff.

After 4C, South might just cue 4H ( denying a ♦ cue ), and it might be enough for North to press on with 4NT-RKCB.