[jdeegan]

I have a question for the group. When might a control showing cue bid in a slam auction be used to show either first or second round control versus first round control only? Thirty years ago I played Blue Team Club where cue bids showed either first or second round control, and it was a very comfortable and playable system. For some reason, though, this approach is seldom, if ever, used playing 2/1 or SAYC as far as I know. I have no problem with this, but it does make sense that in some auctions it would be useful to play it the old Blue Team way. After all, the real purpose of a control showing cue bid is to say to partner that slam is a possibility (or at the very least, there is an idle bid available), and, by the way, I am looking at this control. Good slam bidding is conversational.

Is there any sensible way to codify the circumstances when a cue bid would be strictly first round vs. first or second round control showing? Could the two way cue bid be reserved for certain types of auctions? Or, perhaps, for certain strength hands? What do today's expert pairs do in this regard? Any comments?

[kenrexford]

The old "Blue Team" style of cuebidding, evolved over the years, is much more frequently employed than you seem to believe. Check over the last few weeks, and a multitude of posts discussing this school exist. A lot of these posts might answer some of your concerns.

[jdeegan]

Thanks for the tip. I typed in 'cue bid second round controls' into the BBO search engine and found an excellent thread on the subject started by pbleighton on July 6, 2006.

It brought back fond memories of using the Italian methods. It does require judgment, but so do the traditional ace showing methods. Also, you MUST know when 4NT is D/I (the term D/I stands for declaratory/interrogatory, which really doesn't mean anything, the bid is just a relay indicating a desire to continue investigations) or ace asking - Garozzo's rule sounds right (4NT as a jump or on 1st or 2nd round is control asking).

The other neat item was a most instructive hand submitted by Winstonm.

Scoring: IMP

---

It illustrates a major suit slam based on a two suit fit, each partner with just a little in the way of extras and just enough controls (28 HCP in the two hands). Two thoughts on this one: 1) much easier to bid using the Italian method of showing controls (♦KQ2), 2) also easier to bid if the responding hand can find a sequence to define good trump support, a strong second suit and some extras.

One idea to show this latter hand is to use an adjunct to Bergen raises. Do the Bergen raise in your minor suit, then bid again to show your hand. So, the auction would be:
1♠ = 3♣
3♠ = 4♠
5♦ = 5♥
5♠ = 6♠
5♦ shows a control, OK trumps and suggests a club card. 5♥ shows a control on the way to 5♠ and is encouraging. 5♠ says nothing extra. 6♠ finishes. Note that a very pessimistic South could pass 4♠, and a pessimistic North might pass 5♠. Perhaps, South looking at probably no trump losers ought to bid 6♠ instead of 5♠.

As always, good slam bidding is conversational and depends on judgment plus a bit of luck. In the finals of the big team event at the ACBL Spring Nationals, the winning team iced the event by bidding a <25% grand that came home.

[Free]

I find your auction REALLY poor! You can easily start cues at the 4-level, so why start them at 5-level? Btw, I haven't seen many players using 1st round controls only... Either they are true 'blacky-believers' or they use 1/2 controls.

[inquiry]

jdeegan, on Aug 5 2006, 06:33 AM, said:

Thanks for the tip. I typed in 'cue bid second round controls' into the BBO search engine and found an excellent thread on the subject started by pbleighton on July 6, 2006.

It brought back fond memories of using the Italian methods. It does require judgment, but so do the traditional ace showing methods. Also, you MUST know when 4NT is D/I (the term D/I stands for declaratory/interrogatory, which really doesn't mean anything, the bid is just a relay indicating a desire to continue investigations) or ace asking - Garozzo's rule sounds right (4NT as a jump or on 1st or 2nd round is control asking).

The other neat item was a most instructive hand submitted by Winstonm.

It illustrates a major suit slam based on a two suit fit, each partner with just a little in the way of extras and just enough controls (28 HCP in the two hands). Two thoughts on this one: 1) much easier to bid using the Italian method of showing controls (♦KQ2), 2) also easier to bid if the responding hand can find a sequence to define good trump support, a strong second suit and some extras.

One idea to show this latter hand is to use an adjunct to Bergen raises. Do the Bergen raise in your minor suit, then bid again to show your hand. So, the auction would be:
1♠ = 3♣
3♠ = 4♠
5♦ = 5♥
5♠ = 6♠
5♦ shows a control, OK trumps and suggests a club card. 5♥ shows a control on the way to 5♠ and is encouraging. 5♠ says nothing extra. 6♠ finishes. Note that a very pessimistic South could pass 4♠, and a pessimistic North might pass 5♠. Perhaps, South looking at probably no trump losers ought to bid 6♠ instead of 5♠.

As always, good slam bidding is conversational and depends on judgment plus a bit of luck. In the finals of the big team event at the ACBL Spring Nationals, the winning team iced the event by bidding a <25% grand that came home.

I like cue-bid first or second round controls, and "third round control" in partners suit after a fit in my suit is found. I cue-bid singletons, void, same as aces and kings with one exception. I never cue-bid shortness in my partners suit.

Let's look at the hand you quote and see how it might be bid playing 2/1

Scoring: IMP

---

1S - 2C (2C is clubs, game force)
2S - 3S (3S = spade support, slam try likely)
4C - 4H (4C = cue-bid, here not A or K, resopnder sees those, so Q)
4N - 5S
6S - all pass

Note, 4H denied A or K of diamonds, with diamond control, opener checks for controls, finds only one missing and bids the slam. If responder had held Heart king rather than heart ACE, you would be in a somewhat risky 5S, or slightly safer 5C (should you pass 5C showing 1 key card).

I have to admit, even if I played Bergen, which I don't, 3C would never occur to me as an initial response with this hand.

[mike777]

To be fair this is a very difficult hand to bid slam in 2/1. I doubt I would bid it at the table. Congrats to those that do.

28 hcp, 2 balanced hands. I would just state I think being able to bid these type of slams is a low priority compared to counting the hand, play and defense of the hand and competitive bidding.

As others have pointed out before I think you need to cuebid aces before voids.

[Winstonm]

jdeegan, on Aug 5 2006, 06:33 AM, said:

Thanks for the tip.  I typed in 'cue bid second round controls' into the BBO search engine and found an excellent thread on the subject started by pbleighton on July 6, 2006.

It brought back fond memories of using the Italian methods.  It does require judgment, but so do the traditional ace showing methods.  Also, you MUST know when 4NT is D/I (the term D/I stands for declaratory/interrogatory, which really doesn't mean anything, the bid is just a relay indicating a desire to continue investigations) or ace asking - Garozzo's rule sounds right (4NT as a jump or on 1st or 2nd round is control asking). 

The other neat item was a most instructive hand submitted by Winstonm.

Dealer: South Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ Q874 ♥ A9 ♦ 96 ♣ AKJ32 ♠ AK1095 ♥ 43 ♦ KQ2 ♣ Q54

It illustrates a major suit slam based on a two suit fit, each partner with just a little in the way of extras and just enough controls (28 HCP in the two hands).  Two thoughts on this one: 1) much easier to bid using the Italian method of showing controls (♦KQ2), 2) also easier to bid if the responding hand can find a sequence to define good trump support, a strong second suit and some extras.

One idea to show this latter hand is to use an adjunct to Bergen raises.  Do the Bergen raise in your minor suit, then bid again to show your hand.  So, the auction would be:
1♠ = 3♣
3♠ = 4♠
5♦ = 5♥
5♠ = 6♠
5♦ shows a control, OK trumps and suggests a club card.  5♥ shows a control on the way to 5♠ and is encouraging. 5♠ says nothing extra.  6♠ finishes.  Note that a very pessimistic South could pass 4♠, and a pessimistic North might pass 5♠. Perhaps, South looking at probably no trump losers ought to bid 6♠ instead of 5♠.

As always, good slam bidding is conversational and depends on judgment plus a bit of luck.  In the finals of the big team event at the ACBL Spring Nationals, the winning team iced the event by bidding a <25% grand that came home.

A comment on methodology. As you pointed out in the 28 point slam hand, the key issue is the quality of the two suits first of all. That has always been my basic contention in bidding undervalued slams - the first thing you do is see if you have 10-11 tricks in two suits. Once that in known, then the next questions to answer are do we have controls in the unbids and do we have two losers in any suit.

This is not for the casual partnership as it requires a high degree of discussion and evaluation. I also feel strongly that there must be a way to separate minimum "slammish" hands from strong slammish hands, and therefore some type of serious slam try bid should be part of the arsenal. I think there is a lot of merit to the "frivious" 3N concept, a bid that says, Pard, I'm on a minimum but the cards I hold are well suited to slam if you have slam interest. However, notice that on the 28 point slam hand, a 3N frivilous bid doesn't convey the much needed information of "I have the filler card for clubs" if that helps. For this reason, we use 3N as serious and immediate bids as non-serious.

[mike777]

WinstonM is a big advocate of spending a lot of time and energy on these underpoint, hard to bid slams. I am more than willing to give his team this slam if I can play and defend better .

I assume if I ever meet his team, his will be much better than mine and I still make this tradeoff

[inquiry]

mike777, on Aug 5 2006, 01:09 PM, said:

To be fair this is a very difficult hand to bid slam in 2/1. I doubt I would bid it at the table. Congrats to those that do.

28 hcp, 2 balanced hands. I would just state I think being able to bid these type of slams is a low priority

Well maybe HCP evaluation is not the right way.... Try ZAR....

North -
14 hcp = 14 Zars
5 controls = 5 Zars
5422 dist = 12 Zars
Total Before Fit = 31 ZARS

South -
14 hcp = 14 ZARS
4 contols = 4 ZARS
5332 dist = 11 ZARS
Total Before Fit = 29 ZARS

Fit. North gets 1 ZAR for the spade Queen, 1 Zar for doubleton. South Gets 1 Zar for the club queen. Alternatively, you can use SuperFit Zar points, (differences in suit legnths), which here is 4. So add either 3 or 4 "fit" Zar points.

31 + 29 + 4 = 64 ZARS. For slam, ZAR suggest you need 62. Yes, yes, ok, ZAR is just an appoximation, but using ZAR evaluation in here, someone will be thinking slam.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Aug 5 2006, 06:51 PM, said:

WinstonM is a big advocate of spending a lot of time and energy on these underpoint, hard to bid slams.  I am more than willing to give his team this slam if I can play and defend better .

I assume if I ever meet his team, his will be much better than mine and I still make this tradeoff

To be fair, what I said was that if my team were to meet an opponent of extremely high quality like Hamman or the like, the only edge we might be able to get over them is in bidding, that if we could consistently reach good thin slams it would allow us to at least compete with them - without, we'd just be so much wood to run through the chucker.

[mike777]

inquiry, on Aug 5 2006, 08:06 PM, said:

mike777, on Aug 5 2006, 01:09 PM, said:

To be fair this is a very difficult hand to bid slam in 2/1.   I doubt I would bid it at the table.  Congrats to those that do.

28 hcp, 2 balanced hands. I would just state I think being able to bid these type of slams is a low priority

Well maybe HCP evaluation is not the right way.... Try ZAR....

North -
14 hcp = 14 Zars
5 controls = 5 Zars
5422 dist = 12 Zars
Total Before Fit = 31 ZARS

South -
14 hcp = 14 ZARS
4 contols = 4 ZARS
5332 dist = 11 ZARS
Total Before Fit = 29 ZARS

Fit. North gets 1 ZAR for the spade Queen, 1 Zar for doubleton. South Gets 1 Zar for the club queen. Alternatively, you can use SuperFit Zar points, (differences in suit legnths), which here is 4. So add either 3 or 4 "fit" Zar points.

31 + 29 + 4 = 64 ZARS. For slam, ZAR suggest you need 62. Yes, yes, ok, ZAR is just an appoximation, but using ZAR evaluation in here, someone will be thinking slam.

On going discussion....when do you just bid 2nt...fancy strong raise with 4 card support or bid your club suit which partner may take as real clubs or not?


On this hand bidding 2c is a winner, but one hand does not convince me that bidding fancy 2nt with 4 card support is not a winner in the long run but........willing to look and learn .

ON this hand I could find out that partner had 13-14 hcp.....only 5 spades, no stiff or void, no AK of clubs and the A or K of D and no decent 2 suited hand. I wish I could say I know that partner has the Q of clubs but no......

[inquiry]

mike777, on Aug 5 2006, 08:58 PM, said:

On going discussion....when do you just bid 2nt...fancy strong raise with 4 card support or bid your club suit which partner may take as real clubs or not?

With support and only game invite values I bid 2NT even with a side five card suit (lets say clubs). With Game Forcing hands and five plus clubs, i will bid 2C then raise (as on this hand). So.. not game force with side five card suit, 2NT, GF hand with side suit, side suit first. I will also bid 2NT with GF hands but that will deny a side five card suit. BTW, if my hand is sooooo strong, I will bid 2NT even with three card support. That is 16+ hcp and balanced.

Quote

On this hand bidding 2c is a winner,  but one hand does not convince me that bidding fancy 2nt with 4 card support is not a winner in the long run but........willing to look and learn  .

It is good you are willing to consider your bidding style. No one would suggest you adopt things like the funny 2C bid I play, but you might consider when to bid 2NT and when to show your suit and then raise. This hand is a perfect example of why showing your suit is key. It allows your partner to show degree of fit, and perhaps count to 12 tricks (as WinstonM pointed out elsewhere, it is tricks than count, not hcp).

Quote

ON this hand I could find out that partner had 13-14 hcp.....only 5 spades, no stiff or void, no AK of clubs and the A or K of D and no decent 2 suited hand.  I wish I could say I know that partner has the Q of clubs but no......

And the way to find out about the queen of clubs? Show your five card club suit first, then partner can "cue-bid" a queen there. That is another reason why you bid 2C rather than 2NT.

[Winstonm]

Now you've got me in stride, Mike. I really don't have any use whatsoever for Jacoby 2N.

Ozzie was a genius, for sure, and transfers are a thing of beauty - but I think he must have been drinking when he came up with Jacoby 2NT. The bid is hugely room consuming without enough specificity, the responses are vague at best, and the overuse buries in responder's hand a suit that might be a valuable source of tricks. It overstates the value of singletons in opener's hand while consuming too much room when opener has something of real slam value - a second suit. And it does all this damage by replacing a truly valuable and needed bid - the natural and forcing 2NT.

Here is my point. Your partner opens a major of which you have support and you hold your own suit of AQJxx. You bid this suit and partner raises it - you can realistically now start to think of 5 tricks out of this suit - tricks are what contracts are made of. But if you bid Jacoby 2N and partner bids anything but 3 of your suit, you have no clue whether he holds Kxx or Kx or xxx or xx in your suit. You are back to relying more on overall point count than tricks to determine how high to bid - and the last time I checked, it still took 10 tricks to make a major suit game and 12 tricks to make a small slam, regardless of the HCPs. There is a huge difference in subsequent bidding when you know for sure you are starting a slam search with 10 tricks verses an assumption of maybe no more than 9.

Thus endeth the tirade.

[mike777]

To be fair to the OZ man I play Bergen's complicated version.

On this hand partner would bid 3c in my style over 2c and a huge fit is found......


With all of that said....I need to see more discussion on the values of hiding the 4th trump at bid one for responder but listening............

[Winstonm]

I have been informed I am not at liberty to discuss details, but if you are a fan of Bergen raises then keep an eye out for an upcoming Bridge World article - can't say for sure which issue yet.

Btw, I happen to agree that often the nature of the 4-card support makes a difference in making a slam try or not. The other night I held:
Qxxxx, Kxxx, AQ9x, void. A little light, I opened 1S and pard bid 2C. I bid 2H and he jumped to 3S. We had discussed that this showed good 4-card support and a strong slam try. As my hand was control rich although minimum, I bid 4D, propelling us to 6S. Although it made, it was disappointing to find partner with only AKx of spades - had I suspected an 8-card fit, I would not have bid quite so aggressively.

[keylime]

I confess that playing Ultra Club with Larry I as North would have a very tricky time determining the strain of contract after:

1S* (4+ spades - 2C* (art G/F)
2H* (five spades exactly) - 2S
2NT- 3C and etc.