[kgr]

We play 1st and 2nd round control cues. Below 2 questions. Bidding before the cues is only for setup of the question. Please only consider the cue-bidding question.
1. Suppose the bidding goes:
1S-2NT
3D-3H
3NT-4D
4H
 
2NT: 4c-fit; limit+
3D: 18-19 HCP
3H: Asking relay
3NT: balanced; no singleton; inviting to cue
4D: 1st or 2nd control D; no C control
=> 4H: should always have a C control, but should it also have a H control? It looks like the C control is what partner is looking for? Or should opener bid above 4S with a C control and no H control?
 
2. Suppose the bidding goes:
1S-2NT
3S-3NT
4C-4H
 
2NT: 4c-fit; limit+
3S: minimum, balanced
3NT: balanced; no singleton; inviting to cue
4C: 1st or 2nd control C;
4H: 1st or 2nd control H; no D control
Now opener is limited and responder is unlimited, but has no D-control. Should opener always go on above 4S with a D-control; even with an absolute minimum?
 
Thanks,
Koen

[Codo]

1. IN my opinion most playerts plays this wrong, for them 4 Heart shows a control and a club control too. This is silly, for me it asks for a control. With both suits control, you bid RCKB.

2. Yes sure, responder did not ask: Do you have min or deadly min, he asked: Do you have a control. If I have one, I must go on.

[kgr]

Codo, on Sep 6 2007, 11:36 AM, said:

1. IN my opinion most playerts plays this wrong, for them 4 Heart shows a control and a club control too. This is silly, for me it asks for a control. With both suits control, you bid RCKB.

Not sure I agree with "With both suits control, you bid RCKB.".
Opener is limited (18-19HCP) and responder's range is larger. Maybe responder wants to go to 7S. I'm not sure if it is a good idea that opener takes control here. Isn't it better that 4H simply says: "I have a Club control"?

[ulven]

1) 4H says C-control. Doesn't guarantee H-control.

2) No, only advance with missing control and some extras. If missing control as all responder needs, he'll have to bid again.

[hrothgar]

You raise and interesting question that is made more complicated by the fact that many of the books that document the cue bidding style based on showing 1st/2nd round control are somewhat dated. (For example, there have been a number of technical advancements since the books on Blue Club were published; "Last Train" as an obvious example.

Here are a few thoughts

1. 4NT should not be used as Blackwood once we start a cue bidding sequence

2. In your first auction, the 4♥ bid would show a club control. It does not necessarily promise a Heart control

[Echognome]

Note that this is a side issue to the ones you raised:

I also want to add that you may want to reconsider your response structure over 2NT. Seems like it is using a lot of space to show hand types that can probably be group together. You don't need to be able to show all the ranges as you can use serious (or frivolous) 3NT to help later on. Look at any of the various threads on Jacoby (or Jordan) 2NT.

[Codo]

kgr, on Sep 6 2007, 06:54 PM, said:

Codo, on Sep 6 2007, 11:36 AM, said:

1. IN my opinion most playerts plays this wrong, for them 4 Heart shows a control and a club control too. This is silly, for me it asks for a control. With both suits control, you bid RCKB.

Not sure I agree with "With both suits control, you bid RCKB.".
Opener is limited (18-19HCP) and responder's range is larger. Maybe responder wants to go to 7S. I'm not sure if it is a good idea that opener takes control here. Isn't it better that 4H simply says: "I have a Club control"?

Sorry, I took the bidding wrong, I thought responder was the limited hand.

I absolute agree that after your system
1S-2NT
3D-3H
3NT-4D
4H
4 Spade denies a Heart control too, but still has SI (else you had bid 4 Spade before) and 4 NT shows one and askes (for whatever, I would use KC) is superior.

Btw I dislike your bidding sequence because responder ask about the hand from declarer, which makes it much easier to defend. I prefer systems where opener asks dummy.

[kenrexford]

As always, some agreements are necessary. That being said, some "agreements" arise from logic and necessity and thus should be universal.

Take the first example. When opener bid 3♦, Opener seems to be expressing "serious interest" in slam IF Responder has a full opening hand, by my way of thinking. Responder's 3♥ call apparently invited shortness bids for slam purposes, and Opener denied that by bidding 3NT. However, as 3NT "invited cues," I suppose that 3♠ must have been a yield-captaincy option but 3NT a seize-captaincy option.

If that is correct, then Opener's 4♥ call is "last train," whether you "play that" or whether that term is used to describe a contextually logical and necessary understanding. Opener is showing a club control only incidentally. 4♥ should invite further cues OR 4NT if Responder has the heart control (or possibly Lackwood, or whatever you do -- go past game).

The second is different. Now, Responder bid 3NT, "inviting to cue." Because Opener has a balanced minimum, Responder must have a very strong hand to care about cues. Thus, whether described as such or not, 3NT was "serious interest." The hand with serious interest has captaincy.

The 4♥ call isolated the problem -- diamonds. Yes, Opener should move. The idea of an "absolute minimum" makes little sense to me, as I assume that 3♠ showed a very tight range. If not, the structure is flawed.

How Opener moves is, again, a matter of style and agreements.

One huge principle is important here. These two questions seem to be raised with a concern that the theoretically correct decision might be errant because more general concerns might make the five-level unsafe. The structure of your calls, and the decisions made within that structure, should have already taken this into account. If you are responding, do not bid 2NT if the expected sequence of bids will yield a problem -- start with a 2/1 or with some other option. If you find an inability to find alternatives, and the 2NT sequence leads you to the paradox of a call committing to the five-level too frequently, then consider structural changes. The cure is not to sacrifice structural integrity.