[inquiry]

Quote

All very simple, except for the fact that you are now cue bidding a shortage opposite partner's suit.  This is rarely considered to be a good thing.  Many authorities specifically state that this is not done.

Well, who are you going to listen too? Some multiple-time world champion and professiional bridge author who tells you not cue-bid shortness in your partner's suit? Or me, an overweight, very old, bright beginner who has never won anything or published any bridge text who tells you to show your controls when you got em....  

Seriously, it is just a game. Don't let others (the grizzled world champion) or the poster here with diarheaa of the fingers (me) tell you how you should bid. Listen to all sides, and see what fits best within your philosphy of the game. For me, when I start cue-bidding, I am generally trying to get to a point where I can use BLACKWOOD. I don't want to use blackwood to find out I am off one key card and bid slam to discover that that one key card is in a suit where we lack both first and second roudn controls and they cash two winners. For me, this means sometimes having to cue-bid shortness in partners suit. If partner beats me to the punch by cue-bidding in his own suit, that is great, I feel no compulsion to show shortness in his suit then.

I recommend that you are a serious enough player that you can roll your own solution to this situation. If you never want to cue-bid shortness in your partner's first suit, that is fine. It solves some other problems -- when you cue-bid, your partner can start counting tricks (my patner has the king, in my suit, so I have "x" number of tricks). But in the hand we are discussion, the captain doesn't need opener to count tricks, he needs opener to show him what he needs to know if he has slam opposite RESPONDER 1 or RESPONDER 2.

[hrothgar]

Quote

Seriously, it is just a game. Don't let others (the grizzled world champion) or the poster here with diarheaa of the fingers (me) tell you how you should bid. Listen to all sides, and see what fits best within your philosphy of the game. For me, when I start cue-bidding, I am generally trying to get to a point where I can use BLACKWOOD. I don't want to use blackwood to find out I am off one key card and bid slam to discover that that one key card is in a suit where we lack both first and second roudn controls and they cash two winners.

Wow.

We're on such different wavelengths.
I normally play that Blackwood is off if we're started a cue bidding sequence.  The meaning of the 4NT bid will vary based on the specifics of the cue bidding sequence, but its never Blackwood (keycard or otherwise)

Its kind of amusing to see how far different styles have varied

[bglover]

AH, finally we have reached a reasonable and logical conclusion to this long thread, which is there is no clear answer...

As I stated early in this long thread I felt there were missed opportunities by both parties and I think we can only conclude that 2 reasonably good plyers with different styles can both bid (in their own mehodology) correctly and still it comes out wrong absent CLEAR, COGENT AGREEMENTS.

When Fred said he thought that this thread wouldn't get any answers because he thought his logic was so clear that kind of said it all right there... His partner bid logically, he bid logically but they still both (due to lack of proper understandings) came to the wrong place.

FWIW. on the actual hand, due to a poor heart break, the hand goes down after the lead of a singleton. It was actually an over 60% slam that was missed, and the actual bidders got a great score for missing the slam!

Hope we all had fun and hope that all this heated discussion didn't hurt anyone feelings!

I really did post this to stir things up!

[inquiry]

Quote

[size=2]We're on such different wavelengths.
I normally play that Blackwood is off if we're started a cue bidding sequence.  The meaning of the 4NT bid will vary based on the specifics of the cue bidding sequence, but its never Blackwood (keycard or otherwise)

Its kind of amusing to see how far different styles have varied

I understand why you bid this way. You play a relay system where a lot of very specific distributional clues are available. So by specific cue-bidding, you can usually add the controls to the distribution and figure out how high to go. I am more often in the dark, so I just want to make sure no one is cashing out on me. However, a good 30 % or so of my slam auctions that start with cue-bidding never use Blackwood. That is, it is not a requirement that you start cue-bidding and then switch to blackwood. It is just an option. This same theory (find out if all suits are controlled or not, then use blackwood) is the theory behind the fabulous LACKWOOD that is part of the LTTC/Serious 3NT auctions scheme.

[bglover]

I have often found that pick I up a hand with xx in a suit and have relative comfort with all other suits. I don't want to use blackwood until i have specific information regarding that suit.

This approach is very safe, particularly for small slams, and imparts a minimum of information to the opponents vs. lots of cue bidding (my main objection to cue bidding in general of course is that it helps paint a road for the defenders).

[hrothgar]

Quote

I understand why you bid this way. You play a relay system where a lot of very specific distributional clues are available. So by specific cue-bidding, you can usually add the controls to the distribution and figure out how high to go.

Actually, this has nothing to do with MOSCITO which is based on codified denial cue bids.  My cue bidding style playing "standard" is essentially that used in Blue Club.  Pretty effective.

[Codo]

Hi hrothgar,

if somebody forces me to give up cuebidding or blackwood, I would choose the later. But in a standard system I can have both, especially when I am using my prefered mixed cues.
So, why not use the best of both worlds?

Kind Regards

ROland

[hrothgar]

Quote

Hi hrothgar,

if somebody forces me to give up cuebidding or blackwood, I would choose the later. But in a standard system I can have both, especially when I am using my prefered mixed cues.
So, why not use the best of both worlds?

Kind Regards

ROland

Nothing wrong with the theory, however, I doubt that you are achieving this in practice.  

From the looks of things, you are using a set of agreements in which 4NT is always treated as Blackwood (or RKCB), regardless of the meaning of the auction so far.  There are certainly advantages to this interpretation.  Most noteably, this is a fairly simplistic (in the good way) agreement that avoids confusion.

Following a cue bididng sequence, I prefer to treat 4NT as an invitational bid.  If partner has a minimum hand, he will drop dead in the trump suit.  Alternatively, he has the option to show an extra control at the 5 level or (rarely) to jump directly to slam.  The is a much more flexible style, however, it requires much better partnership understandings regarding precisely what the 4NT bidding was asking about.  

[Codo]

Hi Hrotgar,

you are right: In an established partnership it is usefull to use 4 NT in different ways. I f.e have it as RCKB, to play or inviting, depends on the context. But online, with the guy from montana, I better play it straight and easy.

Kidn Regards

Roland

[inquiry]

I use to play that once cue-bidding started, Notrumps was a cue-bid in trumps... but a specific kind, it either showed two of the top three honors, or zero of the top three... You would bypass cue-bidding in Notrump with exactly one of the top three honors. This work fairly well (I believe I got this from a bridge world article in maybe the late 70's or early 80's, but don't feel like going back to look it up). But I have reverted back to the blackwood/Lackwood style.

And hrothgar, it has been decades since I played blue club, and I maynot be well versed in their current (or even past 20 years or so) cue-bidding style. But my recollection from the very first English Blue Team book (the blue one) and T. Reese's book, was that they bid first or second round controls up the line, including distributional controls (at least in late 60's early 70's). You said you bid first round controls first I believe in one post supporting steve (I problably should go back and look to make sure) and don't cue-bid distributional controls in your parnters suit. Is this really the modern Blue Team cue-bidding style?

[hrothgar]

Quote

And hrothgar, it has been decades since I played blue club, and I maynot be well versed in their current (or even past 20 years or so) cue-bidding style. But my recollection from the very first English Blue Team book (the blue one) and T. Reese's book, was that they bid first or second round controls up the line, including distributional controls (at least in late 60's early 70's). You said you bid first round controls first I believe in one post supporting steve (I problably should go back and look to make sure) and don't cue-bid distributional controls in your parnters suit. Is this really the modern Blue Team cue-bidding style?

Before I switched to MOSCITO I played a fairly "traditional" Blue Club variant.  The only real deviation was that we used a multi 2D and Muiderberg 2H/2S openings.

As you note, the cue bidding style was to show 1st/2nd round controls up the line.  Players cue bid both honors and shortage, however, during the first pass you should not cue bid a shortage in partner's bid suit.  

[inquiry]

Not cue-bidding shortage in partner's suit on first pass, even if you use the style of first or second round control up the line makes sense to me. But this discussion started way back on why 6H wasn't reached... and it was, IMHO because the responder failed to bid 4C, bidding 4D instead. What you said about that then was.

Quote

In my own cue bidding style, the 4D bid would be strong, but ambiguous regarding a club control since responder can't cue bid a club shortage.

So I assumed you wouldn't cue-bid shortage in your partners suit more or less ever (not just first pass).  And I was pretty sure my ancient memory reminds me that Blue Team do cue-bid shortness., whichi prompted my reply...

You even stated in an earlier post that "many authorities" recommend not cue-bidding shortness in your partners suit. Ok, first round of cue-bidding, I agree with that, but second round, no. And in an EVEN earlier post, you suggested that 4D shows Diamond control (first) but does not deny second round control in Clubs. So what I was trying to probe, given your statement that your cue-bidding style is based upon blue-team, is would blue team people cue-bid 4Cs? I am fairly sure that in in the early 70's they would have.

[hrothgar]

Quote

Not cue-bidding shortage in partner's suit on first pass, even if you use the style of first or second round control up the line makes sense to me. But this discussion started way back on why 6H wasn't reached... and it was, IMHO because the responder failed to bid 4C, bidding 4D instead. What you said about that then was.
So I assumed you wouldn't cue-bid shortage in your partners suit more or less ever (not just first pass).  And I was pretty sure my ancient memory reminds me that Blue Team do cue-bid shortness., whichi prompted my reply...

You even stated in an earlier post that "many authorities" recommend not cue-bidding shortness in your partners suit. Ok, first round of cue-bidding, I agree with that, but second round, no. And in an EVEN earlier post, you suggested that 4D shows Diamond control (first) but does not deny second round control in Clubs. So what I was trying to probe, given your statement that your cue-bidding style is based upon blue-team, is would blue team people cue-bid 4Cs? I am fairly sure that in in the early 70's they would have.

I think I see where the confusion comes from.
When I originally answered the question, I was assuming a "standard" North American cue bidding style in which players only show first round controls.  Accordingly, the 4D cue is ambiguous about a 2nd round distirbutional club control.

I also commented that in my own cue bidding style, we cue bid both 1st/2nd round controls, but here too there is an ambguity.  In this case this is arising because we would not show distributional shortage in the suit that partner opened on the first pass.

Accordingly, using either cue bidding style I lwould jump to 5H over 4D.

[inquiry]

Quote

I think I see where the confusion comes from.
When I originally answered the question, I was assuming a "standard" North American cue bidding style in which players only show first round controls.  Accordingly, the 4D cue is ambiguous about a 2nd round distirbutional club control.

I also commented that in my own cue bidding style, we cue bid both 1st/2nd round controls, but here too there is an ambguity.  In this case this is arising because we would not show distributional shortage in the suit that partner opened on the first pass.

Accordingly, using either cue bidding style I lwould jump to 5H over 4D.

Ok... I know I feel like we have beaten this dead horse too much already. With your jump to 5H (asking for good trumps), you get to 6H opposite both....
S-xx H-AKQxx D-AKQx C-x    (making), and
S-x  H-AKQxx D-AKQx  C-xx  (not a real chance)

On to some other, exciting topics... take a look at the favorite pscyhic thread in expert/advanced thread and see if you have any comments there ---- I am much less opinionated about psychics...  :

[hrothgar]

Quote

Ok... I know I feel like we have beaten this dead horse too much already. With your jump to 5H (asking for good trumps), you get to 6H opposite both....
S-xx H-AKQxx D-AKQx C-x    (making), and
S-x  H-AKQxx D-AKQx  C-xx  (not a real chance)

And I am happy to do so.

First and foremost, recall that I have 5 clubs.  This suggests that responder has 2 spades and 1 club.

Even if responder shows up with the 1552 hand, I can easily make 6H if the opps don't find the club lead + continuation off the top.  (AKQ of spades will give me the club pitches that I need)

After a fairly quick + uniformative auction the opps are going to be make a blind opening lead.  If the club honors are split, the opps will probably favor a spade lead.  If the club honors are together AND the opener leaded has AK of clubs we're in bad shape.  If the club honors are together and the opening leader has xxxx in both black suits we're 50-50%.

Double dummy this doesn't rate to be a good slam.
Luckily, the opponents rarely defend double dummy.