[firmit]

Moscito uses Slam points AKQ=321 SP
Many Strong club systems uses controlpoints, AK=21 CP
Any thoughts about control card points? AK=64 CCP

Guess this is only a matter of partnership agreement and personal preferences?

The ambiguity is not so big using CCP as to what the responder is showing. Example:
Say responder is showing exactly 3-1-5-4 after 1♣-3♦, and opener relays 3♥ as a CCP-asking bid.

With AQxx x Kxxxx Kxxx
- SP 8, { AAQ, AKKQ, KKKQQ, KKKK }
- CP 4, { AA, AKK, KKKK }
- CCP 14 { AKK }

3♠ - 6SP, 2CP, 6 CCP
3N - 7SP, 3CP, 8 CCP
4♣ - 8SP, 4CP, 10 CCP
...
4♥ - 14 CCP

Note that without the Q, SP lands on 3N, but here, SP and CP land on 4♣, so using CCP one looses space but gains separation power. However, relayer is often able to distinguish which card responder is showing - or he might ask with Denial Cue-bid, so maybe the petty differences are negligible? Any thoughts?

Edit: maybe some will say that the first bid 3♠ is negative/minimum - thus saying 6-8 CCP = 2CP {A, KK}. This will mean 14 CCP lands on 4♦.

[MickyB]

Why are A/K 6/4 and not 3/2?

[firmit]

MickyB, on Jun 24 2007, 01:09 PM, said:

Why are A/K 6/4 and not 3/2?

Good question. Guess slam points and control card points are pretty much the same, but the separation power with ccp is better given it does not assign a point to the Q. Guess one could divide CCP by 2 and get the same result, however it is mainly because A=4 hcp + 2cp= 6ccp, K=3 hcp + 1cp = 4ccp

[helene_t]

MickyB, on Jun 24 2007, 01:09 PM, said:

Why are A/K 6/4 and not 3/2?

I never saw this before, but maybe it is historically related to the Vienna point count:
A=6
K=4
Q=2
J=1

[skjaeran]

helene_t, on Jun 24 2007, 03:23 PM, said:

MickyB, on Jun 24 2007, 01:09 PM, said:

Why are A/K 6/4 and not 3/2?

I never saw this before, but maybe it is historically related to the Vienna point count:
A=6
K=4
Q=2
J=1

The Vienna count point is 7-5-3-1 for A-K-Q-J respectively.

[effervesce]

The Zar point scheme uses A = 6, K = 4, Q = 2 and J = 1.

[Echognome]

I believe we've had this discussion on the forums before. I think one needs to look beyond one ask in deciding on the best way to show honors. I personally prefer control points plus a sliding queen ask. That is a rule on when you start to show Q's. For us that rule is that if you add up the number of A's and K's in your hand and call that x, then you start showing Q's in your xth suit. So with your example hand of: AQx x Kxxxx Kxxx, we count 3 A's and K's (1A + 2K) and will start showing Q's in our 3rd scanned suit (which is spades). I find the sliding scale good because with more controls, you will want to focus on showing your A's and K's, whereas with less, it's inefficient to keep denying in suits. There can be some ambiguity, but I've yet to find a hand (without constructing one) where this has caused difficulty.

[awm]

The nice thing about control points is that you get a relatively narrow range of values. The best possible responder hand where you're likely to want to stop in game (and may not have five-level safety) is something like A+A+K. If you require 2 controls for a positive, this is a range of 2-5 controls which is really quite small.

On the other hand, slam points carry a wider range. If you require 4 slam points for a positive, then your range is something like 4-8 (again ignoring hands better than A+A+K). In compensation for dealing with this wider range, you can find queens much earlier in the sequence.

What you suggest seems to carry the worst of both. You have the wider range of values but still have to wait for controls to resolve before locating queens. While it's true that this method will help you at times to distinguish aces from kings, it is very rare that opener has trouble with that anyway.