[jdeegan]

Old fashioned American bidding always promised first round control with a cue bid. The Blue Team bid first and second round controls indiscriminately. The commonsense treatment is to let weaker hands use the old Blue Team method since they may sniff a possible slam, but not have a convenient (or any) ace to Q bid. Bigger hands don't have that excuse since ambiguity about 1st vs 2nd round control can become a real problem later on,

We all (should) agree that good slam bidding is conversational. My question is when does an obvious Q bid promise 1st round versus 1st OR 2nd round control. A case in point:

Q65
AJ10963
K75
4

Partner opens 1♦. You respond 1♥. Partner rebids 4♥. May I cue bid 5♣?

Are there any useful rules or guidelines to follow in these situations?

[kenrexford]

Rules for cues seem to break down as space is absorbed. When your first cue is at the five-level, this is hardly a time to use the same general rules as you would use at the two-level, for example.

In the specific situation that you have given, I would highly suspect that any side cue is likely shortness, actually. To not be bidding 4NT as RKCB under these circumstances, you must have a problem hand, and the most likely culprit is a shortness-based issue. Hence, I would guess, even without seeing the actual hand, that either 4♠ or 5♣ (and especially 5♣) is probably a shortness-based slam move.

Whether this is Exclusion or simply a slam move with shortness may be somewhat unclear, as far as "gut feeling," but simple shortness makes more sense, IMO.

Whether this is a universal take on this sequence or not is wildly unknown by me, however. Curious to see other responses.

[jdeegan]

kenrexford, on Sep 1 2009, 05:28 PM, said:

Rules for cues seem to break down as space is absorbed.  When your first cue is at the five-level, this is hardly a time to use the same general rules as you would use at the two-level, for example.

I see your point. Sequences that are low enough so that RKC or some other asking bid can establish first round controls later in the auction can afford to make Q bids that are ambiguous almost regardless of hand strength.

[Fluffy]

your priority when cuebdding is to avoid thinking that Kxx opposite singleton is huge. Because it really stinks.

There is no problem cuebidding a King on partner's long suit, but there is a problem cuebidding singleton in there.

But the contrary is true, there is a problem cuebiddign a King where partner might have singleton, but cuebidding a singleton is safer.


There are no big rules, I can add that if we have shown a 5 card suit and partner failed to raise, we never cue a king in there as well (partner wants the ace and won't think doubleton is a big problem). Unless partner is balanced.

[Codo]

I have the simple rules that all cuebids are first or second round control.
If we cue partners suit at the first opportunity, we show a card, not a shortage.

Till last year I played all cuebids at the 5. level as first round controls and I guess that this is more common.
I belive that this is better, but up to now I had no problem with the new approach.

[mcphee]

So the hand shown held minors Kxx x and bids 5C, if the minor holding were reversed, x Kxx you can't bid 5C anymore? To me the long and short of the cue bid question is, cue bids show a hand interested in slam that was unable to use key card.

[Fluffy]

the hand shown should rathe ruse keycardblackwood IMO. It will solve more problems. Sure AKs might be cashing but I prefer AKs cashing than 2 aces wich is way harder to avoid. And much more likelly

[gnasher]

When will 5♣ lead to slam missing two aces? With something like Kx KQxx AQJ10x Kx partner should just bid 5♦, confirming spade control and showing his diamond control. Over that, we can bid 5♥ and he should pass.

Maybe AK KQxx QJ10xx KJ is more of a problem - partner might feel he has to drive slam because he has a spade control, although personally I'd hedge by faking a 5♦ cuebid. Anyway, it's not a very likely hand.

I'm assuming that partner would have splintered if he had a singleton spade; if 4♥ includes hands with a singleton, it includes rather more one-ace hands that will look good to partner.

Answering the original question, you should be cautious about cue-bidding second-round controls at the five level, but on this hand it's probably OK because your ♦K makes it unlikely that partner will have enough to drive slam with only one ace. Obviously, cue-bidding at the five level requires both partners to exercise judgment, whereas 4NT requires only that they be able to count.

[ONEferBRID]

I would think if the first cue is at the 5-level ( ie above game ), that it would show 1st Rnd Ctrl.

I know some who normally play "mixed cues" would still define a first cue on the 4-level as 1st Rnd Ctrl also.

- - Don - -

[kenrexford]

Here's the problem, IMO, with a cue at the five-level promising first-round control. If the issue is first-round controls, then RKCB works fairly well at resolving that problem. If you want to have a bid be sort of a quantitative invite, showing first-round controls, then it makes more sense, IMO, to have a split model along these lines:

4NT = RKCB
5♣+ = Answers to RKCB, but only invitational strength

However, the issue is rarely just first-round controls. Instead, it is fit. If Responder has no first-round controls on the side, then what is he supposed to do? Seems better to show values. I mean, a slam can be bid off two Aces without having a bad auction. This is rare, but it happens.

If you spend too much time worrying about ever being in a slam off two Aces, you will miss a lot of slams that would otherwise be biddable. If one Ace-Ace-down-one slam is paid for by several otherwise unbiddable slams, that seems good. Or, looking at it another way, missing 10 slams because one of them would have been set because of an Ace-Ace-down-one defense seems bad.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

we play cues can be either 1st or 2nd round control, but the
first cue is never shortage.
The firs cue in partners suit is a top honor.
Cues on the 5 level are an exception, they could be based
on shortage or not, they show a first round control.

So in other words - no 5C bid for us, but 5D is an option, partner
will be able to figure out, that you have the king.
................................................................................................
The other option is 5H as a quantitative raise, partner will certainly
accept with 3 KC, you may still be missing AK in spade, but since
you by passed 4S, partner is warned, at least slightly.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdeegan]

Lotsa good stuff in this thread.
1. RKCB with 2 quick losers in a side suit may be OK if pard has the strong hand and no other good bid is available.
2. Try to keep 5 level Q's in a side suit as 1st round controls.
3. Five level Q's in partners suit may show the king, but never a stiff.
Hmmm............... I'm going to put my example hand up on another BBO Forum as a poll question and see what happens.

[ONEferBRID]

jdeegan, on Sep 3 2009, 05:42 PM, said:

Lotsa good stuff in this thread. 

3. Five level Q's in partners suit may show the king, but never a stiff.

As coincidence would have it, a similar bidding occurred in the Tannah Hirsch bridge column in the newspaper this past weekend ( Sat, 8/29/09 ).

1D - 1S
4S -??

where Responder held:
A J 8 7 2
J
K J 5
J 9 5 4

"The double fit and the fifth spade make slam prospects inviting, so we must decide which feature of our hand would be of most interest to partner. Clearly, telling him of your support for HIS suit could be the key to unlocking the door to slam.... Bid 5D ".

[kenrexford]

ONEferBRID, on Sep 3 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

jdeegan, on Sep 3 2009, 05:42 PM, said:

Lotsa good stuff in this thread. 

3. Five level Q's in partners suit may show the king, but never a stiff.

As coincidence would have it, a similar bidding occurred in the Tannah Hirsch bridge column in the newspaper this past weekend ( Sat, 8/29/09 ).

1D - 1S
4S -??

where Responder held:
A J 8 7 2
J
K J 5
J 9 5 4

"The double fit and the fifth spade make slam prospects inviting, so we must decide which feature of our hand would be of most interest to partner. Clearly, telling him of your support for HIS suit could be the key to unlocking the door to slam.... Bid 5D ".

Not sure I agree with that at all. I would sort of expect any constructive call to imply a diamond card. So, bidding diamonds just to show the diamond card seems redundant. Bidding diamonds to show unexpected diamonds, like KQx, seems more reasonable.

[Fluffy]

that would be true if you were a passed hand ken, but unpassed you might just have loads of extras

[kenrexford]

Fluffy, on Sep 4 2009, 08:36 AM, said:

that would be true if you were a passed hand ken, but unpassed you might just have loads of extras

But if I had a load of extras I'd probably bid 4NT. If I have a hand without a diamond card and some wild mess of extras where I don't know what to do and don't have a diamond card, and don't have a spade control either, I'm just stuck. Maybe I bid a quantitative 5♠. But, 5♣ to me says I have a diamond card, logically.