[benlessard]

Playing relay system (transfer openings) and using multiple Keyc and exclusion but no denials Q or controls asking bids.

Do you think not being able to cue-bid or to ask for controls is a heavy penalty ?

1st I think losing 2 quick loser (AK) in a fragment suit isnt so terrible as long as slam is cold if they fail to find the lead.

2st - cuebidding often allow them X to stop you from bidding 6 or to help them find the best lead against your good slam.

Example


1♥ 5s (12-14 or 18-22)-------------1♠ rel 6+ ?
2♣ (4h)--------------------------------2♦ GF
2♥ (A= +1)----------------------------2♠ (rel)
3♣ (D=1 1+1=2nd hand 5431)----3♦ ♠keyc♠
4♣ (2+Q no ♥K♥--------------- ???

partner showed

5431

2 keyc ♠Q.


your hand is


KJx
xx
AKQxxx
xx


Partner is likely to have the ♥A♥ and the ♠A♠ but about 20% of the time he will have the ♣A♣ in wich case a ♥ lead will set the contract.


4♦ is signoff
4♥ is asking for the ♦K♦
4♠ is asking for the ♥Q♥

etc


But we have no controls asking bid (at least now)


This is a hand that we endup relaying early but a hand where the opps have good info that make the ♥ lead is likely and responder will play the hand so underleading ♥K♥ is safer.


But my conclusion is

on most slam we bid we have controls on every suit anyway.

Telling the suit where you lack a controls is costly.

Finding the killer lead when defender can cash 2 quick loser isnt easy.

Even with ♥AK♥ a lightner X may backfire because responder could easily have a singleton (he will play the hand by the way )


So is life without cue-bidding or controls asking bids possible ?


Ben

[awm]

Once you've given the opponents as much information as relay auctions tend to do, it's a good idea to avoid bad slams. It's true that if the bidding had gone 1♠-P-6♠ or the like, there is a fairly good chance opponents would not find their two cashing hearts. But on this bidding:

(1) An opponent with the ♥A will lead it; he knows his partner has the king.
(2) An opponent with weak hearts knows the strength in heart is likely to be in dummy, and may lead it anyway for this reason (hope to set up partner's ♥K behind the ace).
(3) An opponent with ♥K only is more likely to lead it than he would otherwise be for more or less the same reason.

Anyways, with all the distributional info known I think you're more likely to get a heart lead. You are also making a lot of artificial bids anyways with the relay auctions, and there's a reasonable chance opponents can double for a lead long before you get to keycard responses.

My feeling is that there are two approaches to bidding games and slams. One is to blast a contract as soon as possible, figuring that while you may be in a bad spot, your opponents are more likely to misdefend or take a bad sacrifice or otherwise make an error. The other is to try to gather as much information as possible to optimize the contract, realizing that this will also help the opponents on defense. While I have no strong reason to say one of these is "better" than the other, and suspect it has a lot to do with the hand in question, I think once you're playing relay methods you are committed to the "scientific" approach. Relaying and then just bidding what may be a bad contract is the worst of both worlds.

[benlessard]

Responder (or declarer if you prefer can have the ♥K)

So leading an ♥A inst so clear.

Quote

and there's a reasonable chance opponents can double for a lead long before you get to keycard responses.

we are keycarding at the 3 level and we have 4h opposite 2 in that case there is no chance of a lead directing X before keyc




Overall i agree with your point.


But its still not sure that cue-bidding is a better option then having extrakeycard and being 1 level lower.


Cue-bidding take a lot of space and at the 4 level space is very precious IMHO.


Ben



PS this was a hand somewhat defavorable for the NO Q-BIDs methods.

But on most hand we do well.

[kenrexford]

IMO, the cost of not cuebidding is not most important in clear slam auctions. Rather, it is critical in marginal slam auctions.

What do I mean? You need some quantum of values to make a slam. Say that is X. A slam might fail if the opponents, nonetheless, have some defensive quantum of values, say Y. Offensively, you might have additional values, say Z, which are wasted (the slam where you have 16 tricks).

If your combined assets are X+Z, cuebidding solves whether Y exceeds 1. Information deprivation, however, might cause the opponents to not take Y tricks if cuebidding is rejected. Information exchange might even add to Z to make X-1 become X.

However, some slams are barely X. Some deals will total X, or X-1, or even X-2, without any real ability to know which without cuebidding. IMO, cuebidding is incredibly important and useful because of a related theorum. I believe that cuebidding allows determining whether the deal is X, X-1, or X-2 much more often that cuebidding allows Y to be fully capitalized to reduce X-2 to X-3.

[kenrexford]

Wait until you get into imaginary numbers ("i"). This explains a lot of real-life bidding.

[benlessard]

Yes but if you are in marginal values auction and may have 2 quick loser youre not even safe at the 5 level so cue-bidding seems risky anyway.



akqxx
axxx
xx
xx



Jxx
kqx
akxxxx
Qx



1h (5s) -------- 1s(6+ rel)
2c-(4h) ----------2d GF
3c (5422) ------ 3d keyc
3s (3 keyc)----- 4c (q ?)
4h (yes no K H)-- now what ??

partner could be

aqxxx
axxx
xx
ax



kqjxx
axxx
xx
ax

the only hand wich give a fair shot is if opener is playing the hand (wich is not the case for us)


AKQxx
Jxxx
xx
Ax



The standard approach is cue-bidding before game and ace ask after.


but with minimal values both approach are flawed with minimal values missing a keycard or having 2 quick loser is dangerous. But i prefer losing 2 quick trick then missing a keycard and the Q of trump.


Ben

[Walddk]

kenrexford, on Mar 6 2006, 05:49 AM, said:

Wait until you get into imaginary numbers ("i").  This explains a lot of real-life bidding.

I am sure you are right, but how many of the world's expert and/or world class players use imaginary numbers or other sophisticated algebra? My guess is 0.000000001%, and all the others are doing quite well without it.

Sure you give info away if you want to bid accurately. That is the price you pay, but I much prefer to stay out of a slam where the opponents have AK in a cashing side suit rather than bid the slam and hope that they won't lead the suit.

Even if they don't cash their top winners, you often can't be certain that you have enough tricks to make the contract.

Roland

[cherdano]

Jlall, on Mar 6 2006, 06:38 AM, said:

I guess thats why I failed algebra2

Well, I am a mathematician, but I am still too lazy to try to work out what is meant by X+Z and Y and X-2 when this could be explained much more cleanly in plain language.