[Winstonm]

kenrexford, on Jul 25 2006, 09:37 AM, said:

I'm not sure I understand the merits of the double jump to show two honors in partner's suit.  Cuebidding 3C to show one top honor, and then later cuebidding 4C to show the other honor, not only allows for an entire realm of cuebids on route to the second cuebid, but also allows for the rare Splinter into partner's suit to actually show shortness, in case partner has a hand with interest opposite shortness.

That being said, I happen to use a strange jump in the auction you suggested to show two top honors in clubs, Winston.  ;-)  After 1S-2C-2D-2S, I have devoted the jump to 3NT to show, specifically, two top honors in spades, two top honors (third) in clubs, no Ace or King in my side suit, and, by inference, a stiff in the fourth suit (perhaps KQxxx-x-Qxxx-KQx).  This is all part of a complete theory of cuebidding, however.

If your double jump to show two honors has specific parameters like my 3NT, with an alternative to show the stiff, then it would seem to work.

The reason we assigned this double jump bid is our belief that in under-strength hands it is trick-taking potential and controls that are key. Although room consuming, this treatmet allows partner to get more excited about his hand when he is aware that his suit will provide 5-6 tricks - and it also brings into play the prospect of playing that suit if partner has the need to protect a vulnerable side-suit holding. Because out system allows us other forcing raises with 3-card support, we do not have to respond in weak suits; hence, the value of being able to still splinter in partner's suit is diminished.

Your 3N sounds good; however, my partner would never remember it and I might not as well. It sounds too natural and at our ages.... one of the frustations of growing older is we cannot also use the superior treatment because we have to be aware of the "forget factor". :-)

[sfbp]

Quote

In your style, you bid the suit below the suit you are interessted in, some kind of transfer asking bid... This works well, if you have the hand with two of three side suits controlled, but won´t work, if you have just one under control.
And pd cannot judge from your 4 Diamond bid if you have a control in clubs, so I think, that the downsides are much higher then the upside.

Hi Roland,

The additional information is that partner gets the idea of how to value his hand (just like a game try) and can refuse altogether if he has the control and still hates his hand. We are below game and so we know that either one may be a second round control.

Where it wins is if you are looking for second round control or better (how many times have you wished to bid a slam but you can't find that K(Q)x in partner's hand opposite xxx, and you can't afford blackwood?).

If you have only one suit controlled then you bid it, of course. What I am saying is that simultaneously telling partner something about your hand as well as giving him information about what you need, is a better approach than blindly bidding aces up (or down) the line.

[kenrexford]

Does your jump Q deny, promise, or otherwise speak to side controls? If it does, great! If not, one value to the 3NT option is that it allows more room for further cuebidding.

A simple example. 1S-P-2D-P-2H-P-2S-P-4D. Only LTTC (4H) is available. Shift the 4D call to 3NT and you add 4C and 4D. I happen to play these as asking bids, but nonetheless more room is added. Sure, the Picture Splinter of 4D removes bidding space, but I believe that you want to maximize space with the hand that fits assuredly, rather than the one that does not.

In any event, you might consider 3NT for the stiff in partner's suit. It gains having a way to show that hand, and it sounds "right" in that 3NT might be plausible as a "better contract" if shortness is opposing values. A stray pass by accident might yield an occasional undeserved top.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Does your jump Q deny, promise, or otherwise speak to side controls?

Yes and no. We rely a great deal on judgement and evaluation in these auctions, so the jump support would show a minimum type hand with good controls. We define all these weak/fit-find 12-trick slam tries as "sniffer" bids - we're like a couple of hound dogs sniffing around for slam.

The implication of the bid is that opener has some reason to suggest slam with a minimum hand - this would be based on shape, controls, and fit.

You have a good point, though, in that perhaps the 4D bid should guarantee a contol in clubs - otherwise you could reach 5 of the major with xxx opposite xxx in hearts. Something to discuss with pard....let's see, I think that's number 12,394.

[mike777]

zasanya, on Jul 25 2006, 08:04 AM, said:

Most experts in this illuminating thread have advised against cue bidding shortness in Partners suit.Could they elaborate on it?Would they cue bid A or K in Partner's suit?
Some others advise cue bidding even a Q in Partners suit.Do they have an agreement that cue bid in Partner's suit is always a high honor and never a shortage?

Basically, yes...never shortage cuebid in partner's known long suit. I suppose you could come up with a one in a million exception but yes to your basic question.

The basic tradeoff is that a known Ace or a King cuebid in her long suit will be winning bridge more often than cuebidding shortness. Again it is a tradeoff.

Keep in mind even if partner needs a stiff in her long bid suit she may be able to convey that information by bidding around in her other suits. Thus negating the imperative for you to cuebid your stiff in partner's long known suit.

AKQ...xx..AK...QTxxxx
1s=2c
2h=2s
3h=4d
4h=5d(or 4s)
?

2c=game force and natural
2s=slam try, extras!
3h=cue
4d=cue, deny ace of clubs
4h=K cue
5d= second round d control but again denying K of clubs and ace of clubs.
alternative is you could rebid 4s again showing uncertainity by not cuebidding clubs or bidding rkc.

[kgr]

Second round control cues: you cue a suit (eg D) and you cue it later again. (See post above for example):
Does it promise first round control (A or void) or does it promise more (AK or void)?
I play the former, but posts here seem to suggest the later.

[barmar]

I think most play that if you cue a suit twice you're showing first AND second round control. So it's a singleton A, AK(...), or void.

In a related note, if you splinter in a suit and later cue bid it, you're showing that the splinter was a void, not singleton.

[kgr]

barmar, on Jul 26 2006, 07:46 PM, said:

I think most play that if you cue a suit twice you're showing first AND second round control.  So it's a singleton A, AK(...), or void.

You only promised 2nd round control in the first round of cue bidding. Why can't you rebid the suit in the 2nd round if you have first control (and not AK)?
Is the idea that if partner only needs to know if you have first control then he can ask aces?
(...You can probably rebid the cue with a void.)

Quote

In a related note, if you splinter in a suit and later cue bid it, you're showing that the splinter was a void, not singleton

Seems logic

[kenrexford]

The answer to what a repeated cuebid of the same suit means is entirely contextual. If first-round control is necessary for slam, and if an alternative cue infers first-round control, then a direct cue either denies a higher option or shows a double control. Context is key.

[barmar]

kgr, on Jul 26 2006, 04:25 PM, said:

barmar, on Jul 26 2006, 07:46 PM, said:

I think most play that if you cue a suit twice you're showing first AND second round control.  So it's a singleton A, AK(...), or void.

You only promised 2nd round control in the first round of cue bidding. Why can't you rebid the suit in the 2nd round if you have first control (and not AK)?
Is the idea that if partner only needs to know if you have first control then he can ask aces?
(...You can probably rebid the cue with a void.)

That's one part. And if partner has the other honor control, he can already infer what you have, so it's likely to be a wasted bid.