[Echognome]

I hardly think it proves any point to give examples of hands that care only about controls showing how well they work using control responses. What about the hands where we cannot make slam and want to find the right strain for game? Kinda suck with control responses don't they?

I know a few authors that taut their methods by providing example hands where they work ideally. Big whoop!

[blackshoe]

One thing that affects how your build your response structure to 2♣ is what kinds of hands can open 2♣, and whether opener's rebid in a new suit over a minimum response is forcing to game. Modern style seems to be to open a lot of hands with 2♣ that Goren would have considered too weak for that call, and sometimes allow the bidding to subside below game. If that's the case, maybe control showing responses (which are slam oriented opposite hands that need controls and cover cards) is a bad approach. But if you have some other way to show the "not quite game forcing" hands, so that your 2♣ opening (if not balanced) is truly game forcing, perhaps showing controls is useful.

[jjbrr]

Another point is that presumably in relay precision systems, you can choose whether or not to initiate the control ask depending on whether or not you think that information will be valuable to you. Ideally, either player would be able to ask, depending on which player is the captain of the hand. For example, you wouldn't ask for controls until you know you have a fit and you have the features in your hand (perhaps a second suit) in which knowledge about controls will be especially helpful.

Using controls over 2♣, you have no choice but to answer your controls, regardless of whether the information is helpful or harmful to the auction, regardless of who the captain of the hand is, regardless of whether or not you were going to ask for aces anyway (after finding a fit or even not finding a fit), and regardless of whether or not you have your own suit or suits to bid.

It's much like asking keycard before finding a fit, and I think any experienced player would agree that that is not the correct order.

[pirate22]

I am trying to generate hands to further the argument/discussion,lets have some hands from precision/romex players succesfull and unsuccesfull, contracts.
from sayc/2/1-acol players mosquito players,polish club players,whether cue bidding Rkc bidders need an input of hands regards

[manudude03]

It really doesn't help when out of the 2 hands posted, the 1st is a very easy 7S to bid in 2/1 and the second has no legitimate way of making (funny you didn't check if responder's king was in diamonds which would make slam decent).

To hopefully let you see the light, here's the last 2 slam(ish) hands i remember starting with 2C:

Scoring: MP

---

Playing ACOL.
This ended in 7C=:

2C-2D
2S-3C
4H-4NT
5C-5D
5S-7C

Note that 7S has play but it's poor.

Scoring: MP

---

2/1 this time.

2C-2S
3H-4H
4NT-5D
6H

Going one off when I find ♥ AJx offside.

[PrecisionL]

blackshoe, on Oct 15 2009, 04:32 PM, said:

If I'm not mistaken, it was Garrozzo who originated control showing responses - or he was an early advocate of them. I haven't seen anything directly from him on it recently, but my understanding is that he's now decided that a more natural initial response system — so hopefully finding strain early — is better than showing controls.

That said, Romex still uses control showing responses (to both 2♣ and 1NT) , and my understanding is that they work well in that context.

Quoting from WORLD CLASS by Marc Smith (1999), page 66: Benito Garozzo & Systems:

"The Blue Club system that we played years ago just is not good enough for top-level today. ... The old system was based on controls, and it has taken me many years to realize that was wrong. The distribution is the most important thing and you should gear your bidding to concentrate on that first. ... First it should be distribution, and only when you know enough about partner's shape should you worry about controls."

Enough said?

[pirate22]

I agree opening 2c having a void in a suit is dangerous,and can lead to problems,so one would not open the hands with 2cl,employing Norman responses,but having said that ,the 4/nt opener is a specific response factor,there are hands that warrent this example

V--AKQJxxxx-K-AKQ10 one would not use 2cl
use 4n/t asking for specific aces 5cl=0 5d=Ace d 5sp=Ace sp 5n/t=2 aces

also opening 2cl one can get barrage bidding taking place with2cl opener to muddy waters--not so with 4n/t openers pard can use dopi and ropi,also still using above responses

[blackshoe]

If that's what 4NT means in your system.

[pirate22]

Blackshoe i do not know if 4n/t has a system name,but it was xplained to me long time ago,and has come into operation lots of times,depends how much bridge one plays-but one has to be ready at all times,once explained to partners the bid stands out a mile

[blackshoe]

If a partnership wants to make this agreement, that's fine with me - all I"m saying is that absent discussion and agreement, I wouldn't assume partner has any idea what he's supposed to do when I open 4NT - so I don't.

[rduran1216]

of course it depends on what system you're playing.

I similarly hate Steps over 2C. It wrong sides the contract more than it helps.

With 2/1, I play 2D promises a control, while 2H is no aces or kings. I think this is optimal. You still have time to explore with the knowledge that you have at least a control from your partner.

[mikeh]

pirate22, on Nov 5 2009, 12:50 AM, said:

Blackshoe i do not know if 4n/t has a system name,but it was xplained to me long time ago,and has come into operation lots of times,depends how much bridge one plays-but one has to be ready at all times,once explained to partners the bid stands out a mile

If I were you, I'd play as much high stake rubber as possible...you have found that an opening 4N asking for Aces comes up 'lots of times'?????????

I have played 4N as asking for specific Aces for the past 30 years.... indeed, I think that in this part of the world, that meaning would be default expert standard....I have never seen it arise...ever.

[pirate22]

well heres a hand today board 16 relaxed bridge with an advanced player,no names no pack drill.
you hold KQ109652--AKQ5--5--A nice hand this is in North hand

east dealer pass--- pass--- pass---your bid?????????????

North bids 4 spades do you agree?????????????/ or hows about 2cl or 4n/t
one would be playing 2d auto if you open 2cl

if you open 4n/t response would be 5 sp-now what is your bid over 5 spades and why???
if ply mod norman over 2cl--response would be 2sp=Ace spades only-- now what is your bid???????????

ply auto 2cl-2d(auto) ??????? 4 spades??????????????? then its pass allround

Pards hand A---J1093--9873---j1075

I rest my case

[blackshoe]

pirate22, on Nov 6 2009, 04:15 PM, said:

I rest my case

One swallow does not make a summer.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Nov 6 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

pirate22, on Nov 6 2009, 04:15 PM, said:

I rest my case

One swallow does not make a summer.

Don't you mean LOL?

[ArtK78]

pirate22, on Nov 6 2009, 04:15 PM, said:

well heres a hand today board 16 relaxed bridge with an advanced player,no names no pack drill.
you hold KQ109652--AKQ5--5--A nice hand this is in North hand

east dealer pass--- pass--- pass---your bid?????????????

North bids 4 spades do you agree?????????????/ or hows about 2cl or 4n/t
one would be playing 2d auto if you open 2cl

if you open 4n/t response would be 5 sp-now what is your bid over 5 spades and why???
if ply mod norman over 2cl--response would be 2sp=Ace spades only-- now what is your bid???????????

ply auto 2cl-2d(auto) ??????? 4 spades??????????????? then its pass allround

Pards hand A---J1093--9873---j1075

I rest my case

If you can't get to a slam on these cards regardless of your method, you are not trying too hard.

4♠ in fourth seat? On a 2 loser hand? You have got to be kidding.

It is actually not difficult to construct a zero count that partner might have on which 6♥ is a claim. For example: --- T9876542 xxx xxx. I think we can establish the spade suit without too much difficulty.

More realistic would be making 6♠ or 6♥, depending on partner's shape, if partner has a pointed suit ace and nothing else other than some length in one of the majors (3+ spades (2 in a pinch) or 5+ hearts).

[rduran1216]

In my system, it would be

2C 2D
2S 3NT
4C(keycard gerber) 4D
6S pass

I dont see any need to jump to 4S with a 2 loser hand, as mentioned previously