[AL78]

I have just read this thread about a missed slam and the advocacy of first rouond cue bidding with a singleton was widely posted:

https://www.bridgeba...eone-do-better/

When I learnt cue bidding, I was taught that you cue first round controls first, followed by second round controls, so on the hand in the thread above, I might not cnsider cueing 4♦ with second round control. Bypassing a suit first time round therefore denies first round control but not second round control. I understand some people cue bid with either first or second round control, but with that style, although I can see how it could lead to good slams that might otherwise be missed, how do you know you are not duplicating controls? Couldn't one person be cueing a king or an ace and the other cueing a singleton or a void, in which case how does the first person know the other person's cue bid is useful or not?

[pescetom]

AL78, on 2022-June-25, 14:06, said:

I have just read this thread about a missed slam and the advocacy of first rouond cue bidding with a singleton was widely posted:

https://www.bridgeba...eone-do-better/

When I learnt cue bidding, I was taught that you cue first round controls first, followed by second round controls, so on the hand in the thread above, I might not cnsider cueing 4♦ with second round control. Bypassing a suit first time round therefore denies first round control but not second round control. I understand some people cue bid with either first or second round control, but with that style, although I can see how it could lead to good slams that might otherwise be missed, how do you know you are not duplicating controls? Couldn't one person be cueing a king or an ace and the other cueing a singleton or a void, in which case how does the first person know the other person's cue bid is useful or not?

As someone used to playing the "modern" style of indifferentiated first/second level control bidding, I feel qualified to reply.

I saw the recent necro you cite but confess I haven't read backwards. For me in N, 4♦ is automatic and doesn't require intuition of the powerful combination with S, which I guess is an additional advantage although the situation seems obvious given the auction.

The prime advantage of this style is not so much that "it might lead to good slams that might otherwise be missed", but rather that it might allow us to stop safely below slam when it turns out we could lose the first two tricks (it was invented in Italy, like most good defensive techniques ). A secondary advantage is that we can effectively check for slam potential starting well below game level, as soon as game forcing fit is established. A tertiary advantage is that we can make a descriptive game force which communicates mild slam-interest following a simple or invitational raise.

Of course the grass can only be so green, and there are downsides. The most obvious (but least important) is King opposite singleton, as you mention. It rarely happens and tends to be obvious from the auction (partner interfered or splintered, u.s.w.). More significant is the risk of incomplete control of trumps without breakout into RKCB, which can be mitigated by playing non-serious 3NT and also some kind of Turbo although that has its own issues. Probably the biggest downside of all is that the auction paints a clear picture for the opponents, assuming agreements are clearly disclosed: if we stopped because we can lose two tricks then we will probably lose those two tricks, whereas another table that jumped to the flawed slam may well make.

[mikeh]

I was one of those advocating for a 4D cue on a stiff.

I agree with everything pescetom wrote…as I wrote back then the 4D bid may confuse opener if he’s looking at the King rather than the Ace, but that keycard would sort that out.

Playing ‘first round first, second later’ was how I learned. It was what NA authorities taught back in the mid 1970s. But what was initially called ‘Italian cuebidding’ (one of the rare Italian contributions🤓) makes constructive bidding much easier than the old style.

However, one has to understand what cue bids mean.

Below game a cuebid promises no more than a potentially useful minimum…‘I’m able to cooperate at least once should you have a great hand’

The partnership then cuebids below game until both partners feel they’ve shown their values and degree of interest and have no reason to go higher OR they’ve realized that they have safety beyond game and have some as yet undescribed values…then they go beyond game, in whichever fashion seems best. Most resort to keycard or it’s relatives, other to quantitative calls and still others to more cuebids.

If one partner has limited his hand (say, made a purely limit raise) then a cuebid by the other player announces significant extras. Responder re-evaluates based on the information provided by the cuebid and either cooperates or not.

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2022-June-25, 15:40, said:

More significant is the risk of incomplete control of trumps without breakout into RKCB, which can be mitigated by playing non-serious 3NT and also some kind of Turbo although that has its own issues. Probably the biggest downside of all is that the auction paints a clear picture for the opponents, assuming agreements are clearly disclosed: if we stopped because we can lose two tricks then we will probably lose those two tricks, whereas another table that jumped to the flawed slam may well make.

While they may be downsides of eg choosing to show your controls over blasting slam, they're not downsides compared to [cue always shows first round control] though. That approach really has very little going for it.

[mw64ahw]

I'm not sure how modern/recent some of these styles are, but I graduated to 1st/2nd round cue-bidding after some hands where I indiscriminately used RKCB and then went down 2 quick tricks with an uncontrolled suit. Showing first round controls only, feels like an expensive bid if you then show the same controls after an RKCB ask. I then moved to Kickbo as an efficient use of space as it shows keycards in conjunction with continued cue-bidding. Above 4T I don't cue-bid Aces. Voids can be shown by cue-bidding a suit that you have already cue-bid or the suit before 4T if you don't use Last Train. You could end up cue-bidding a K after partner has previously cue-bid a short suit, but this can also help partner identify likely missing points and usually both players become aware of the situation. Mostly it turns out that partner has the Ace. 3NT is used for denying 1/2 Trump keycards depending on which hand suggested trumps first.

[Douglas43]

I play modern style cuebids in Acol (no last train or other gadgets).
As pescetom says, if partner bypasses a suit he hasn't got a control. This avoids many situations where you think "slam could still be on if partner has second round club control", make one more try, and finish up at the five level.
Compared to aces/voids first I rely more on RKCB to avoid bidding slam off two cashing aces, and it's now rare for us to bid slam on cue bids alone. But I'm a bit of a comfort blanket person and don't mind using RKCB.

[mw64ahw]

The other option is to bid a suit you don't have control in with skipped suits showing controls. This may be an even more modern approach.