[Codo]

Quote

In another posting, we had to solve the problem what to do with this hand:

Scoring: IMP

1♠-2♣
3♠-?

---

You're playing SAYC.  What now?

Most posters used 5 Spade, some suggested that 3 Spade always sets the trump suit and could cuebid 4 Club. Obvious, both ways have their pros and cons.

What about this idea:
Whenever one partner limited his hand with a weak opening OR showed the clear majority of the points (LIke 20+ NT oepnings, strong jumps like here or other possibilities?) you play denial cuebids.

Then you can bid after: 1 ♠ 2 ♣ 3 ♠:
3 NT: I stop the reds, but have no fit.
4 Diamond I have nothing in D, I may or may not control the Hearts, pd bids 4 Heart to ask about this
4 H I have a control in D, but not in H
4 S I have a fit but no outside controls, or my hand is so weak, that game is the limit.
4 NT I control both suits. RKCB

In this case, you can still use 4 Club as: Hey I really really have clubs and you have no need to jump to the fifth level to deny our red suit controls.

Of course you need a good set of rules to identify when it is time for denial cuebids, but this could be done.

Other examples:
Pd you
2 Spade 4 Club : Pd I have fit and a big hand, but nothing in clubs, can you help me?

Do you have any experience with this idea?
Or do you have no experience but a strong opinion?

Thanks for your input.

[kenrexford]

The idea has some appeal in some auctions.

The idea, if I am sensing this right, is that the weaker hand might plausibly have slam interest with:

Control of both sides
Control of one side or the other
Control of neither side.

Then, one assumes that the weaker hand will rarely have double control (or knows what to do with that hand) and, hence, will always have a lack of control somewhere but might not have a control somewhere.

Once you assume that, then you will cue the cheaper hole. 4H will promise a diamond control, but 4D will deny a diamond control OR BOTH.

The denial cue, in this situation, seems to lower the level of the glump. Whereas a 4H cue would cover either no control or just a heart control in the normal structure, 4H being the higher cue, denial cues would glump the either-or at the lower level, allowing a "Last Train" checkback of 4H to clarify.

This makes a lot of sense. For those of use who do not generally use denial cues, one might propose a rule.

[I]When a weak(er) hand has two cues available to show slammish support in partner's suit, and only two cues, then cues are denial cues. The higher cue shows control in the lower suit but not in the higher suit. The lower cue shows either no control or only control in the higher suit. After a lower cue, Last Train suggests a need for control in the higher suit (which conveniently is the suit bid as the Last Train call).

I could imagine this also playing out in other, similar sequences. I am concerned about having a rule that has undiscussed, theory application. So, I'd probably limit its use to discussed scenarios. But, a good idea, I think.

[hrothgar]

Could you please choose a name other than Denial Cue Bids for this method?

The term DCB is already in use for a different methodology.

[kenrexford]

"Ain't Gotter Here" Bids?

[MickyB]

Any suggestions for another name for this, Richard? I suspect that the term "Denial Cues" was applied to this method before it was used as another term for spiral scanning in a relay structure. I understand that the Sharples played a form of xfer denial cues, i.e. 4♠-P-5♣ denied a control in diamonds, any ideas if they had a name for it?

I've been messing about slightly with this concept already, unfortunately it's a fair way down my list of priorities. Seem to remember that there are times when it has problems due to having nothing to deny a control in.

[BillHiggin]

anti cue bid
negative cue bid
un cue bid
asking cue bid
There must be plenty of options (how many are already claimed and is there a clearing house?)

I have toyed with (implies less than seriously) such an idea with the following rules:
Applies when normal mixed cue bid would.
un cue bid (to pick one name) asks partner to sign off with no control (it might not actually deny a control if ready to deal with the possible sign off)
If control is held in the asked suit, response is either another "un cue" or RKC.

The scheme fails miserably when the first cue might also carry some additional information - i.e. it cannot say "I have a spade shortness and wonder if you have a control in this suit" since partner might need to be able to answer "spade shortness is not good for me" and there is only one "NO" available. This is at least partially mitigated if there is some "serious/frivolous" buffer bid available.

There is good news and bad news - the good news is that there is no last train ambiguity to deal with - the bad news is that there is no last train bid at all. There is a way to deal with this that is only somewhat insane.

If anyone feels a need for further details - see a shrink.