[pbleighton]

I had a discussion today with a partner regarding cue bidding first vs second round controls. It was in the context of a strong club auction, but it can also apply to any GF auction.

Let's say you establish trump below game level in a GF auction, for example:
1S-2H-3H playing 2/1, or 1C-1H-2H playing a strong club.

When you cue bid, should you always show first round controls before second round controls. Let's say you had the CK and the DA in the above auction(s), and extras, so you were going to cue bid. Do you bid clubs or diamonds?

My partner (who is far more experienced than I am) says to bid clubs, it is more important to find out where you are wide open than to know first or second round. He says use RKC to check for aces.

I am fine with this, but I am used to showing first round controls before second round controls.

Which style do you prefer?

Peter

[Winstonm]

I am a strong believer in first and second round contol showing. Prior to RKC, I actually used a very old convention called Culbertson 4N/5N in conjunction with this style and it worked quite admirably. (In Culbertson, a bid of 4N says I have 2 Aces and King of a previously bid suit. A continuation of 5N afterwards ups that to 3 aces.)

Really tight slam bidding is about tricks and controls, not so much HCP strength. I would go so far as to bid this hand this way:

AKxxx, KJx, Qxxx, x

1S-2D
3D-3S
4C*

Partner with Qxxx, A, AKJxx, xxx can easily visualize slam.

Using RKCB in conjunction should prevent any "accidents" as well.

[barmar]

I like your partner's style. As he said, the intent is to find out if you have any suits with two quick losers, in which case you give up on slam immediately. Once you can see there are none of them, you can use some form of Blackwood to confirm whether the controls are aces.

The problem with cue-bidding first round controls first is that it often takes up too much bidding room. Look at your first auction, you're already at 3♥ -- how much cue bidding can you do before you lose the ability to use Blackwood? Perhaps you think "forget about Blackwood, cue bidding is good enough". The problem is that it's hard to cue bid controls in trumps, while RKC allows you to find out about them. It's true that poor players over-rely on Blackwood, but that doesn't mean you should do without it, you just have to use it properly, and cue bidding sets the stage for this.

[Double !]

Doesn't the answer to this question at least partly depend on whether or not you'll be able to show what you want to show if you select one approach over the other. Given the two potential scenarios that you present, if you believe that you'll be safe at the 5-level, it would seem to make sense to show the Ace of D first and then the club king (assuming P informs you that spades are under control).

I admit that I don't know serious 3NT well enough to fully know the ramifications, but P would now have a chance to show some type of club control and you could show the diamond control (unless 4D is now LTTC). If that's the case, I need to learn how to continue the cue-bidding process after Ser. 3NT. Guess I need to read Fred's articles again. Shows the need for one to really fully understand conventions before starting to use them.!!!

Best wishes:

DHL

[Winstonm]

One thing I forgot to mention that I believe is critical - you and pard better be on the same page when it comes to cue bidding his responding suit. I personally do not believe you should cue bid singletons or voids in partner's suit - better to cue bid a top card, even the Q at times, as the object is to see if that "filler" card will produce tricks from his suit.

So, with this auction and hand:
AKJxx, KJx, x, QJxx

1S-2D
2S-3S
4H-

I would not show the singleton diamond.

[barmar]

I understand your point about not cue bidding shortness in partner's suit, but I've also missed slams because of things like this. Partner with something like Qx AQx Qxxxx AKx says to himself "hmm, partner bypassed clubs and diamonds; I have the clubs under control, but we apparently have two quick losers in diamonds." Should responder still cue bid 5♣, in case opener bypassed this shortness?

[Walddk]

pbleighton, on Jul 7 2006, 01:44 AM, said:

My partner (who is far more experienced than I am) says to bid clubs, it is more important to find out where you are wide open than to know first or second round. He says use RKC to check for aces.

Your partner put it very well. The Italian school of cue-bidding.

Roland

[mike777]

pbleighton, on Jul 6 2006, 06:44 PM, said:

I had a discussion today with a partner regarding cue bidding first vs second round controls.  It was in the context of a strong club auction, but it can also apply to any GF auction.

Let's say you establish trump below game level in a GF auction, for example:
1S-2H-3H playing 2/1, or 1C-1H-2H playing a strong club.

When you cue bid, should you always show first round controls before second round controls.  Let's say you had the CK and the DA in the above auction(s), and extras, so you were going to cue bid.  Do you bid clubs or diamonds?

My partner (who is far more experienced than I am) says to bid clubs, it is more important to find out where you are wide open than to know first or second round. He says use RKC to check for aces.

I am fine with this, but I am used to showing first round controls before second round controls.

Which style do you prefer?

Peter

Not a big fan of cuebidding second round control as my very first cuebid, I do it rarely but many love the Italian style. Let's not forget the ability to use 3nt here as a serious slam try on your posted auction also.
1s=2h
3h=3nt
Here 3H can still be 11-13 hcp so 3nt shows strong slam interest but denies ace of spades for starters.

Even on WinstonM's hand:
AKJxx....KJx...x....QJxx
1s=2d
3c=3s
3nt=?

3c=shape but can still be junky 11-13 hcp
3s=slam try, very often only 3 spades but extra's...more than 14 or 15 hcp very often.
3nt=serious slam try. Partner I got extra's not junky 11-13.

I do remember more confusing auctions using the Italian style but if it works for you go for it.

Btw I assume if you are playing a strong club then after:
1c=1h=2h you will have all sorts of asking bids, relays, etc....

[luke warm]

i guess i've been playing the italian way for so long i can't recall any other... but it just makes sense to me that if you skip a suit, you have no ace, king, stiff, or void in that suit... that alone can nip slam aspirations in the bud

[kenrexford]

My opinion is based, in large part, upon a relatively poor grasp of the cuebidding style where first-round controls are bid first. However, I have undertaken over the last year or so to fully analyze the "Italian" style for effectiveness and am quite impressed. When LTTC and Ser3NT are added, incredible auctions develop, where inference is enormous. After gaining an understanding of the theory, and filling in some blanks, I tested this cuebidding approach against several years of Vugraph records and found that perhaps 90% of the overbid and underbid slam-range hands would have been much more easily and effectively handled with this approach over whatever the competitors were apparently using. Explaining the "why" of my personal conclusions is difficult without auctions and without the definition of a complete theory.

[whereagles]

I like mixed cues and RKCB. The 1st/2nd round method is a bit old-fashioned, but playable, of course.

I never gave the matter much thought, though. I just play what's simpler/easier.

[kgr]

Italian cues have the disadvantage that it will not always be clear if partner had 1st or 2nd round control.

[inquiry]

kgr, on Jul 10 2006, 03:33 PM, said:

Italian cues have the disadvantage that it will not always be clear if partner had 1st or 2nd round control.

Italian cues ahve the advantage that it is always clear partner can keep them from cashing two tricks in the cue-bid suit.

I love italian cues, play them, you will like them too.

[Walddk]

inquiry, on Jul 10 2006, 10:43 PM, said:

kgr, on Jul 10 2006, 03:33 PM, said:

Italian cues have the disadvantage that it will not always be clear if partner had 1st or 2nd round control.

Italian cues ahve the advantage that it is always clear partner can keep them from cashing two tricks in the cue-bid suit.

Not the whole truth. If the control is the king and it's exposed in dummy, they may be able to cash the first two (or more) tricks.

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I play mixed cue bids.

But the other style, although old fashioned,
is playable as well.
Playing the old fashioned way, (grand) slam
bidding gets a lot easier, espesially, if one
holds a void.

The main adv. of mixed cue bids is, that you
can make a move below game level more often.

Playing mixed Cue Bids,
I would suggest the following add. agreements:
- 1st cue bid shows a top honor, i.e. a King or a Ace
This will allow partner to judge,if his honors fit.
- Never cue shortage in partners suit
- Treat the Queen in partners suit as a Cue
(We dont play this, but I like this suggestion, which
was made by MikeH or Frances Hinden, ... apologies,
if I have cited the source wrong. .-))

With kind regards
Marlowe

[FrancesHinden]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 10 2006, 10:26 PM, said:

- Treat the Queen in partners suit as a Cue
(We dont play this, but I like this suggestion, which
was made by MikeH or Frances Hinden, ... apologies,
if I have cited the source wrong. .-))

I suggested this once, but I wouldn't always do it as a matter of principle: it depends on the auction. The most common position is when you are known to have a weak hand and partner is known to be very strong.

[FrancesHinden]

pbleighton, on Jul 7 2006, 12:44 AM, said:

My partner (who is far more experienced than I am) says to bid clubs, it is more important to find out where you are wide open than to know first or second round. He says use RKC to check for aces.

I am fine with this, but I am used to showing first round controls before second round controls.

Which style do you prefer?

Peter

I prefer the traditional method of first-before-second, but I haven't played the Italian style with any seriousness. I'm not going to try and sell either method, but want to make a few observations:

i) In spite of mike777's comments, I don't think playing one style rather than the other with suddenly solve lots of slam bidding problems. There are frequently slam hands (and non-slam hands bid to slam) shown on the BBO forums. If you look at them, it's exceptionally rare for one of them to be biddable playing one approach but not the other. What's usually happened when the wrong contract is reached is one of the players has either over- or under-valued their hand.

ii) As with most agreements, what's important is really understanding all the inferences, and what partner does on particular hands.

a. In either style, you need to know when a new suit is natural or a trial bid not a cue bid at all (e.g. we play sequences like 2C - 2D - 2S - 3S - 4C as natural and use 3NT as 'natural' to show a balanced-in-context hand).

b. In either style you need to know when a cue of the opponents suit shows a control at all (e.g. 1S (3D) 4D just shows a good 4S bid in my approach does not promise any control).

c. Although I play a first-before-second style, and don't 'officially' play LTTC at all, there are auctions in which I'll cue a second round control before a first (apart from treating the K in partner's suit as immediately cuebiddable), and auctions in which I'll cue the Q in partner's suit... and auctions in which I'll cue a singleton in the opponents' suit before an outside first round control. The main thing is to have a very clear set of agreements with partner.

d. I haven't played the Italian style, but there must be auctions in which you don't cue 1st/2nd round controls interchangeably. For example, after showing a very strong hand you will generally only cue aces, while a known very weak hand is allowed to cue kings even in my style.

e. Saying "cue either first or second then use RKC" doesn't solve all problems: what about cuebidding at the 5-level? Do you switch to aces only then?

f. Think about what happens over lead-directing doubles. Cueing first-round controls I have a simple agreement: if they double a cuebid redouble shows 2nd round control. If you play the Italian style you will want to use redouble slightly differently.

I could go on.... but I'm not going to.

[reisig]

I use Italian cue bids (of course!) - hard to imagine playing without them. There are some situations that might get a bit confusing, however.
1H 3H (lets say limit)
4C 4D -- what does 4D show? NOT what you think!
Since 4C denied a S cue ...4D is a S cue (maybe D too..but not clear yet)
See what I mean? Somehow they work.

[Impact]

I have a theory that the cue-bidding system that is most appropriate depends on the circumstances (not exactly profound piece of circular logic by definition).

When you have found a fit at a low level and one hand is defined closely (whether by number of controls or covercards etc) a different method is likely to be more successful than when the hands are relatively open-ended.

Additionally, the play will be quite different and the focus changes more frequently when you are in a 4-4 fit as opposed to 5 card major (opposite frequent 3 card support). Obviously I am generalising.

Accordingly opposite a 5card major opening and support (which I tend to show by cover cards, I prefer a traditional style of cue bidding with the variation of using the Romex concept of NT as trump cues (once you have established that as appropriate) since opener knows the number of expected covercards and is now checking that they are the appropriate ones....and it is opener who is in control (unless he has made some short or longsuit slam try to ask responder to evaluate whether his covers are working).

By contrast after 1m-1M
some form of raise of M the hands are much less specified in most cases (ignoring for the moment dramatic picture bids), and general values for slam need to be confirmed. Here Italian mehtods of bidding interchangeably 1st and 2nd round controls gain.

Note, that you actually don't always bid completely interchangeably: sensible rules include: skip a distributional control in a long suit shown by partner on the first scan as the difference between eg x opposite AQ(J)xx(x) and K opposite that holding is appreciable!

Similarly when playing a big club or forcing pass system and opponents intervene, the knowledge of teh approximate range of real controls held by responder is crucial - and the typical limitation on most hands held by responder then makes Italian style far more efficient.

The Italian style takes thought as opposed to rote - and hence it is often perceived as difficult: it is but far more satisfying. It also leads to auctions which allow not merely the knowledge of the approrpiate controls being held but also delicate probes for additional strength: another sensible dictum when palying Italian cues is that first cue below game (other than situations where it is clear from the previous auction tht slam is not possible given your hand and constraints by partner's prior bidding) requires a cue up to game but the first cue above game level shows significant extras over and beyond that shown previously.

This sort of formula allows far more evaluation of medium hands and potentially solves the on-going problems that adorn many 2/1 bidding challengs/MSC problems where both hands have "something in reserve but not enough to take control". it is true dialogue bidding as opposed to question and answer - and hence requires some sensitivity.

THe other tricky feature is the use of non-jump 4NT (NOT Bw/RKCB), and 5NT in the midst of cues: the multiple meanings possible for different sequences include DI (extras with no clear bid), good trumps, looking for the missing control, extras marking time etc. That is the single hardest part of these sequences and requires putting in a lot of time with a compliant partner to establish partnership wavelengths...

Accordingly I prefer to use both systems of cue-bidding but the tradtional applies almost exclusively following raises of Major suit opening bids (including fit-showing jumps and switched singleton/void showing bids), while multi-cue (Italian) holds sway in all others....

The use of splinters in many auctions also makes the use of multi-cues much easier to decipher...

BTW anyone who really wants to see the advantages of multi-cueing and improve his slam bidding should cease using any form of RKCB/Bw for a period as it forces you to evaluate hands for slam purposes and focus on what is needed - and the ways in which you can show/elicit the information. Also you might find that you locate more minor suit slams as you investigate the possibility - and they are about half the potential slams anyway!!!

In a pick-up partnership with a good player I would prefer to play NO form of Bw/RKCB, but have agreements on fitshowing/splinters/fragments. I'd take the risk that we miss a Grand slam (only bidding the small) but our prospects of bidding more good small slams would be enormously enhanced...

regards

[Winstonm]

Quote

In a pick-up partnership with a good player I would prefer to play NO form of Bw/RKCB, but have agreements on fitshowing/splinters/fragments. I'd take the risk that we miss a Grand slam (only bidding the small) but our prospects of bidding more good small slams would be enormously enhanced...

There is no reason to sacrifice an important too such as RCKB if using Italian cues if one follows the dictims of the old Blue Team: From Garozzo's book on Blue Team Club: 4N is ace-asking if it occurs within the first 2 rounds of bidding or if it there is a jump to 4N.

This advice allows a big hand to take control and find out what is needed, yet allows 4N to be as a general slam try in cue bidding auctions.