[mike777]

Hannie, on Sep 9 2005, 11:53 AM, said:

I'm a bit sceptical though.

You claim to get your advice from the best of the best. I would think that these pairs have very clear agreements about exactly what a cuebid shows. I doubt that it is as easy as you make it sound.

Thanks for response Han. This post is just my .02 cents worth. I make no claim of advice from anyone else on this one . Take full blame for any silly posts, no one else.

I agree with your important point, I would think the top class players would have very clear agreements on cuebids. Yes, I still argue simple cuebidding is fine for slam hands 99%+. But different opinions make for a horse race .

Though, Kantar has written many times on his cuebid disasters. .

btw I assume if we are using LTC then if pard has an 8LTC hand then we have we have around a 6 LTC hand to make slam try.

btw2 I love that Klinger book. My only problem is I sometimes forget to use the adjustments . One time forgot when playing with Han of all people, ooops...see his forum post where he was kind enough to not use my name .

[han]

Mike,

Back to that hand, I think that the main mistake was not your small calculation mistake, but the fact that you took Klinger's formula too seriously. Let me try to explain the problem using a metaphor from my real life.

As you probably told you, I teach mathematics. I strongly encourage my students not to use calculators. Why? Because when students use calculators they become too dependent of those little machines, and don't learn to think for themselves. Everybody makes calculation mistakes sometimes, but those students who have learned to think notice when their answer doesn't correspond to reality. The students who only stare at their calculators have no clue.

I think that you made a gross calculation mistake (can happen to everybody) but instead of looking back at the hand and noticing that your result couldn't be right, you trusted your formula and invited game. I must say that you played the hand really well in 3H (and the opponents misdefended) and down one was not such a bad result. Afterwards you blamed the bad contract on a calculation mistake and you learned nothing.

I think that the bridge teachers who try to make bridge easier for there students by giving them formulas (think Goren, Culbertson, Cohen, Bergen, Klinger, etc. and a few of our own forum members too) are not doing their students a favor. I know, students wants those formulas and such books sell well, but students should be taught to think and to develop judgement. Talented students who get too hung up on rules are ruined for life.


I insulted enough great bridge players and teachers by now so I'd better stop.

[mike777]

Good Point, developing judgement should be top prioity. No, did not know you teach Math but sounds like a great approach. In Finance almost no one seems to understand the math that underlies the formulas and they just use the calculator (;. They just punch in Black's formulas and read the answer. As for myself when I studied ARCH for my CFA Charter, it hurt my head but I passed. I think I have reached my Math limits. My partners may say I reached my limits when I could not count to 13. .

This post assumed standard limit raises but for many who use Bergen here is another viewpoint. Of course many top players dislike Bergen including Lawrence/Hardy but for you old fogeys out there who still use it here is some stuff for discussion that a buddy emailed me.

Please note: 3c=4 tumps 7-10 hcp and 3d=4 trumps, limit raise.

"I advocate that an immediate cue bid by opener on the 4 level to show a void! Other than that, cue-bids often show the ace, but might be on a King if thats the best you can do. These are the hands that the hardest to bid without such an agreement AND you pretty much need to have a void to be making a slam try on a hand that is not suitable for blackwood. Cue-bids on the three level can initially be on anything. Much of the time you may only be trying for game--your subsequent bidding clarifies.

I play this over 3C or 3D responses to 1 of a Major....


Example auctions are useful:

1S 3D
??

3H - either a generic game try OR a generic slam try. repsonder either signs off, or should cue bid back. 3NT is accepting and giving opener more room to cue-bid, and it implies you don't have a club control, since you didnt bid 4C.

3S - sign off

3NT - Mathe....asking responder to bid a singleton (or void). A good example of that would be: KQJxxx AK xxxx x

4C - club void
4D - diamond void
4H - heart void

so after a void showing response, blackwood now can now exclude the void suit.....

---------------------------------------

1S 3C
??

3D or 3H - either a long/help suit game try in the suit bid OR an advance cue for slam in the suit bid. Responder initially assumes the game try, and if he is accepting should try to cue bid something in case it was a slam try.

3S - sign off

3NT - Mathe....asking responder to bid a singleton (or void). A good example of that would be: KQJxxx AK xxxx A

4C - club void
4D - diamond void
4H - heart void

---------------------------------------

1H 3D
??

3H - sign off

3S - Mathe....asking responder to bid a singleton (or void). Respond in steps...3NT-clubs, 4C-diaomonds, 4D-spades

3NT - generic slam try, inviting responder to cue bid something...

4C - club void
4D - diamond void
4H - sign-off
4S - Kickback!
---------------------------------------

1H 3C
??

3D - either a generic game try OR a generic slam try. repsonder either signs off, or should cue bid back.

3H - sign off

3S - Mathe....asking responder to bid a singleton (or void). Respond in steps...3NT-clubs, 4C-diaomonds, 4D-spades

3NT - generic slam try, inviting responder to cue bid something...

4C - club void
4D - diamond void
4H - sign-off
4S - Kickback!"
---------------------------------------

[ArcLight]

What would a hand look like that would prefer to play in 3NT rather than 4 of a major, given that we have at least a 5-4 trump fit?

Can you give some examples?

Would they all be 5-3-3-2?

[Walddk]

Yes, ArcLight, I am sure I have more experience with mixed cue bids (Italian school) than you, and there is no doubt in my mind what the best approach is. If you must have the ace for your first cue bid, how can responder know that it's safe to cue bid 4♦ with

xxx
AQxx
Axxx
xx

after this auction:

1♥ - 3♥ = limit
4♣ =cue bid, denying ♠A.

It's fine opposite

x
KJxxxx
KQx
AKx

But it's so wrong when opener has

xxx
KJxxxx
KQ
AK

Give opener the chance to show whether he has any kind of spade control. With the first hand he bids 3♠, with the second 4♣, indicating xx or worse in spades at the same time. This makes life so much easier. I agree completely with Richard. The Italian style is definitely better for investigating small slams, and they are obviously much more frequent than grands.

Besides, you know when to sign off in game when both have xx or worse in a side suit. In my second example the 5-level is too high.

The Italian way of cue bidding is standard for me, and let me add: it is for most top class players in North America too in 2005.

Roland

[mike777]

Many fine players use Italian cuebids successfully. They are great players.
I tried them years ago and it created more confusion and hassel for me. I found them very complicated, draining and resulted in a few poor results that lost whatever theoretical advantage there was in using them. With that said try them, if they work for you great.

At the risk of bringing the LTC haters out.

In your example hands, if pard can make a slam try with my 10-11 hcp limit raise, I really like my hand 7.5 loser hand I am cuebidding A of D.
Hand one =5-1=4 loser hand 24-8-4=12 tricks make a slam try.
Hand two =6-1=5 loser hand,,,maybe 5-6 loser with that KQ tight. In any case too many losers for slam try.

Using FTL hand one:
13-3+2=12 tricks.
13=total tricks
3=combined 2 short suits estimate
+2=25-27 working hcp estimate

Hand two:
13-4+(2 or +1)=11 or 10 tricks.
13=total tricks
-4=estimated combined 2 short suits.
+2=estimated working hcp. If 22-24 working hcp because of KQ tight then +1 only

Note on hand two with both hands having double club you are minus 5 in Dist. not minus 4.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I play 3NT as serious, i.e. it shows slam interest,
asking partner to cue bid.
I also play that the first cue bid shows a top honour,
i.e. the Ace or the King, ... this helps finding out,
if the hand fit.

In other words we use 3NT as a kind of mark time bid,
giving opener the chance to hear more about responders
hand.

With kind regards
Marlowe