[ArcLight]

The book does not explain how to use cue bidding of first and second round controls at the same time (mixed cue bidding).
It shows the authors system, where you are required to use all his methods, such as Serious 3NT, and 2NT as not natural but instead showing weak trumps. If you don't, there are ambiguous sequences, and there is no suggestion in the book on how to deal with them.

I don't agree that the Belladonna article is not of use in a 2/1 system.
Theer may be some connection between system and cue bidding methods, but I'm not convinced its a major problem (I could be wrong!)

>Indeed, why is there a reasion to show poor trumps if one could later use, for instance, RKCB and the Grand Slam try ?

So you dont end up in 5 of a major, and instead try for 3NT.


>I will try to get a copy of Ken's book, especially after reading his reply, from which I suspect he really did a job more comprehensive than the average book on slam investigation :-)

Without question, there is some interesting material. I don't think it will be useful to me, just as reading ROMEX may be interesting, but of no use to me.

The "average book on slam investigation" focuses more on judgment.

Thats what I REALLY LIKED about Alan Moulds Step by Step Slam Bidding.
All you experts wont need it, your judgment is already excellent. For the rest of us, its a great book. Klingers book on Cue Bidding to Slams is also a very good one on cue bidding. I just wish he had more on th mixed cue bidding.
He also had some interesting ideas on using:

-Denial Cue bidding (3NT = inability to cue bid the lower suit, but still slam interest)
I guess this is not used by many pairs

- relay ques - where skipping suits can imply both suits. Sounds confusing.

He does not cover the problem of the Bidding Squeeze as Belladonna calls it, when using mixed cue bidding a cue bid shows control in partners skipped over suit, but not the suit bid.

I'd like to know what system of cue bidding Fred uses with Brad. Hamway, Meckwell, and Cohen/Berkowitz too.

[kenrexford]

ArcLight, on Feb 26 2007, 08:12 AM, said:

The book does not explain how to use cue bidding of first and second round controls at the same time (mixed cue bidding).
It shows the authors system, where you are required to use all his methods, such as Serious 3NT, and 2NT as not natural but instead showing weak trumps. If you don't, there are ambiguous sequences, and there is no suggestion in the book on how to deal with them.

Without question, there is some interesting material. I don't think it will be useful to me, just as reading ROMEX may be interesting, but of no use to me.

* * *

He does not cover the problem of the Bidding Squeeze as Belladonna calls it, when using mixed cue bidding a cue bid shows control in partners skipped over suit, but not the suit bid.

Arclight,

You are right that I do not explain cuebidding without the tools I suggest. That seems to be a strange observation. Should Larry Cohen have explained how to bid in competitive auctions without applying the Law of Total Tricks? Should Kantar have described how to play RKCB without the queen-ask? Should Marshall Miles' new book be called "My System, and Your System Also"?

You also keep denying that I cover the "bidding squeeze" concept. The bidding squeeze only occurs if you do not use Last Train to Clarksville. If you use Last Train to Clarksville, by definition your cuebid one-below the agreed trump suit shows possession of the necessary control(s) that you could not otherwise show, without reference to the denomination of the LTTC bid. So, whereas without LTTC, 4♦ in a heart slam approach would normally show diamonds but might not if circumstances require that it really show spades and/or clubs, my 4♦ call, as LTTC, has no diamond control meaning to begin with. Thus, the sole information available is the inference of covering partner's announced concern, and a lack of enough info to take over with RKCB or some other move above game.

Finally, as to the idea that the tools are not useful playing Romex or some other system. If you play some other system, you probably have above-average analysis skills and above-average ability to translate concepts into your system. The book covers things like cuebidding after a major is agreed in a GF auction at the two-level, or at the three-level. I'm sure this occurs in any system. The book covers cuebidding after the simple raise. I'm sure that occurs in any system. The book covers special moves by a balanced hand; if your 1NT is weak, you super-acceptances are one king lower, because partner is one king higher if invitational. I discuss flag bidding, and I'll bet that any system has occasions where two suits are in focus at high levels, where space is limited.

Sure, many tools appear to be system-specific, but the concepts should be easily translated by anyone skillful enough to play an alternative system. As a former canape player for years, I could easily translate much of this into canape, for example.

[Chamaco]

ArcLight, on Feb 26 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

I don't agree that the Belladonna article is not of use in a 2/1 system.

I did not mean, this, sorry if my post delivered this message, english is not my native language.

All I meant is that there are nuances that are closely related to the system one is playing.

In old Neapolitan/Roman/Blue club methods, an immediate raise of partner's suit guaranteed a honor; you would not raise on, say Txx in trumps.

Another issue was that in italian canapè systems, over 1-of-aminor opening, responder would generally introduce a major suit only if the quality was relatively good, and a responder would not bid, say, 1S on a Jxxx suit.

This could go on and on, but it shows that there are quite a few nuances that are incorporated in a cuebidding system: deciding to bid a suit on *quality* rather than *lenght* has a lot of effects on the inferences one makes in slam bidding.

After all, slam bidding is all about trying to construct hands that partner has bid: these inferences are strongly connected to the details of honors concentration and shape of partner.

Anyway, as I said, just about every book on slam bidding with several case histories is food for thought and therefore bound to improve our judgment :-)

[Flame]

Arclight, i may be wrong but i think your problem begin at the same spot as some of my student (the good ones) and many many other players i know, you think cue bids are intended to show something in a specific suit.
This is wrong.
Yes cue bids do show something in a suit, but this is only thier side job, their main one is to show slam interest and discuess slam with partner.
You better forget what cue bid show in a suit then forget its main goal, many times it might even pay to cue bid with nothing in the suit as opponents wont lead the suit. When you fully understand this and accept this main goal of cue bidding, and i know its not easy since i see player who were tought that cue show ace and cant accept not to know what exactly in the suit, then you can get into the least important thing of what exactly the cue bid better show which as i said is far less important.
As i understand from all this duscussion Ken's book give his suggestion of what the cue bid should show, he doesnt get into the main resson of cuebidding only the minor one, this book might be aiming to player of high level bridge knowlege understanding and expirence.

[kenrexford]

Flame,

You are very correct in your assessment. I do not really speak directly to judgment or thinking at the table. In fact, at times I comment and admit that my own judgment on a particular hand might be suspect. For the most part, I assume that people who read this will already fancy themselves quite talented.

The idea is to give definitions and tools that could be used, such that if they are used, we know what the bids mean.

I hope, however, that some of the auctions and tools enlighten as to theory and judgment. For example, I introduce tools into auctions where many would never think of even making a slam move, or where slam may seem too remote to pursue, especially without very specialized tools. Knowing that there may be a slam in such-and-such situation, and that there may be a method to answer the necessary questions at that point, may enlighten folks.

A simple example. Few realize that 1♥-P-2♥ is the start of an auction where slam is very possible. Most think "less than 21 opposite at most 9 means slam will not make." If an example fo a 22 HCP slam is provided, and understood, and if a tool is described to competently explore that slam, then one might gain judgment by realizing that the impossible is actually very possible.

In a simple nutshell, Hamman I believe once said something like "don't play me for the perfect hand -- I don't have it." My "answer" is to provide a method of not playing partner for the golden hand, but instead asking partner if he has the golden hand, cheaply.

[ArcLight]

>A simple example. Few realize that 1♥-P-2♥ is the start of an auction where slam is very possible. Most think "less than 21 opposite at most 9 means slam will not make." If an example fo a 22 HCP slam is provided, and understood, and if a tool is described to competently explore that slam, then one might gain judgment by realizing that the impossible is actually very possible.


Even fewer realize that to investiage slam on every hand will led to more lost part scores and games as you bid too high.


In some of the examples of the book you fault Meckwell for missing a slam. I wonder if its possible that in their judgement it wasn't worth continuing. They were wrong on that one. Maybe they are right on 2 others? And its not like Meckwell are afraid of science or complexity.


This is a big point in Alan Moulds book. He shows tons of bad slams, and talks a lot about judgment.



>Arclight, i may be wrong but i think your problem begin at the same spot as some of my student (the good ones) and many many other players i know, you think cue bids are intended to show something in a specific suit.
This is wrong.


Ok - I guess I'm deluded then.



>Yes cue bids do show something in a suit, but this is only thier side job, their main one is to show slam interest and discuess slam with partner.


Thats part of it, sure.
It also has NOTHING to do with why I was disappointed with the book.


>You better forget what cue bid show in a suit then forget its main goal, many times it might even pay to cue bid with nothing in the suit as opponents wont lead the suit.


I don't think so, even if you are Zia. Yoor pard will not enjoy playing with you.


> When you fully understand this and accept this main goal of cue bidding, and i know its not easy since i see player who were tought that cue show ace and cant accept not to know what exactly in the suit,

I dont know what you are talking about. I was looking for a book on cue bidding other than the traditional Ace first.
That why I got the book in the first place. I went out of my way to look for this extra knowledge.


> then you can get into the least important thing of what exactly the cue bid better show which as i said is far less important.




Opp to pard = what does 3♦ mean ?
pard = Who the hell knows.

[han]

kenrexford, on Feb 26 2007, 01:32 PM, said:

A simple example. Few realize that 1♥-P-2♥ is the start of an auction where slam is very possible. Most think "less than 21 opposite at most 9 means slam will not make." If an example fo a 22 HCP slam is provided, and understood, and if a tool is described to competently explore that slam, then one might gain judgment by realizing that the impossible is actually very possible.

It is too safe to bash Ken here on the forums, so I'll try to give my critique without doing that. I didn't read the book, only the first 16 pages that are available for free on the web. The impression I got is similar to what I thought when reading this quote.

Those players that do not realise that you can have (and bid!) slam with 22 HCP should not be reading a book like Ken's, they should learn the basics first. And those players who are already able to competently bid some slams with 22 HCP will be bored by trivial comments as these.

I don't know if there is anything worth reading in the later part of the book, there might very well be some gems there, just waiting to be discovered by the expert community.

[ArcLight]

Ken should not be bashed. I see plenty of that on other folders

I was just disappointed with the book. Maybe I was just mislead by the title. maybe it should be "Kens prefered cue bidding system". I would not have bout it but experts like Hannie might. I was hoping for "Cue bidding commonly used by many experts, other than ace first".


>Those players that do not realise that you can have (and bid!) slam with 22 HCP should not be reading a book like Ken's, they should learn the basics first.

Agreed. This also has nothing to do with my criticism of the book. It was a comment Flame made. While 22 HCP can make a slam, its not that common. Even with shape, you tend to need some kind of a minimum, else the opps can sac too cheeply, or compete and make it hard to find. I have bid (and made) 24 HCP slams on occasion, recently missing a 23 HCP slam.



>I didn't read the book, only the first 16 pages that are available for free on the web. The impression I got is similar to what I thought when reading this quote.

You are offering an opinion before reading the book?


>I don't know if there is anything worth reading in the later part of the book, there might very well be some gems there, just waiting to be discovered by the expert community.

I suspect that most real experts are familiar with much of this. Maybe not. Maybe they will find an idea they like.

[han]

ArcLight, on Feb 27 2007, 08:56 AM, said:

>I didn't read the book, only the first 16 pages that are available for free on the web. The impression I got is similar to what I thought when reading this quote.

You are offering an opinion before reading the book?

No, I was offering an impression.

If you don't want to read it, ignore it.

[kenrexford]

I feel like I must have had someone (maybe myself) tape a bullseye to my back.

For those who are contemplating obtaining the book, Arclight hits on some truths about the focus of the book. If you read the sample provided by Masterpoint Press, and the Table of Contexts, you will see that I am offering "a modern approach" to cuebidding that blends the modern "expert" approach (Italian cuebidding, plus Serious 3NT and Last Train to Clarksville) with some new ideas (more defined picture jumps and new follow-up auctions after PJ's, a revision and re-inclusion of the Belladonna 2NT for poor trumps cuebid, Golady, Empathetic Splinters, Flag Bids, unusual "serious 3NT" tools by traditionally weak hands, etc.).

The book was never intended to be Fred's Improving 2/1 GF (one major source for my research) expanded from novellette into a novel. Rather, it was an attempt to expand into undiscussed auctions and to offer suggestions of further improvements to the basic structure of cuebidding.

Actually, I wrote this for myself, in exploring what I thought would work better than what existed, and I note that in the introduction. After I completed this work for myself, I sent it to Ray Lee to see if others might be interested, as I was really excited about what I had worked out. Ray and his wife agreed and were equally excited. Some very notable people also encouraged me to do this. I received encouragement and assistance in this idea from some big names (Eddie Kantar and Larry Cohen, for example).

A large amount of my personal investigation involved developing a complete theory and then testing it against hands bid by the experts who were apparently using conventional wisdom techniques. When I was able to bid more hands to slam competently, or stop at the last making level more often, and others were not (per vugraph records), it seemed that I had developed some good tools. The auctions seemed very clean and easy, with amazing detail discovered.

Experience in actual play, with a very good partner using similar techniques, also convinced me that I had something good put together.

This book is admittedly too advanced for a beginner, and for many intermediates. The introductory material is too simple for those who already understand Belladonna and Gitelman's works, but was added for the brave intermediates who want to give it a try. The meat comes later, in the latter sections.

[inquiry]

One need not be an expert/world class bridge player to write a great bridge book. Clyde love's book on squeezes come to mind. I don't know if Ken is a expert or just advanced player, but much of what is being discussed here is indeed standard. Mixed control cuebidding, serious (or friviolous) 3NT, Last train to clarksville. I happen to be a huge fan of picture bids and my second round splinters by opener or responder are also picture bids (and would require a write up to explain).

I have read many of ken's ideas here on the BBO, Some I disagree with seriously, other I think are on the right track, just a little to strident. Still others seem to 100% correct to me. I have not read Ken's book. I plan to read it because, how often do you get a chance to discuss at legnth with an aouthor of a book his views and reasoning as we have here on the BBF with Ken? HAving said that, I am in no great hurry to buy it, since I don't plan on changing my own cue-bidding preferences. I will say this, however. A lot of the topics are clear... take the example auction mentioned above

1H - 2C
2D - 2H
3D - 3H

Assuming 2C is GF, assuming 2H sets trumps, assuming 3D is cue bid (first or second round control), then 3H must show controls in both black suits, and one must be a first round control (but not necessarily the ace as ken said, a spade void is possible). I cue-bid that way.. I ahve additional clue here as well. Opener does not have the club Queen the way I bid, or I would have cue-bid 3C over 2H.

Responder without black controls (one has to be first round) would bid 4H over 3D to avoid getting opener too excited. The fact that ken's book discusses such auctions suggest it might clearly be worth a read.

But many play 2H as waiting, and 3D as promisng five and not a cue-bid, so these interpretation are, as others pointed out, system/agreement specific.

[ArcLight]

>heh, I just finished Ken's book last night.

So do you use many of the methods described?

How about opponents that you face in high level competition?

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Feb 27 2007, 12:18 PM, said:

heh, I just finished Ken's book last night.

Uh oh. Let me sit down first.

[Flame]

ArcLight, on Feb 27 2007, 08:56 AM, said:

maybe it should be "Kens prefered cue bidding system".  I would not have bout it but experts like Hannie might.  I was hoping for "Cue bidding commonly used by many experts, other than ace first".

Do you really want another book on slams explaining conventions such as RCKB, deniel cue bid, asking bids, byzintine etc ?
Trust me writing such a book is million times easier then writing a real full slam tool as Ken did.
I dont see any better way, this is exactly what i would want, a full system which i can play rather then bunch of tools which i need to implement.
I didnt read the book but i admire Ken for being so brave writing such a book.
Im also sure it was very hard to do alot of work needed for such a book.
I agree with you on one thing, i would like to know that this system really work and for that the only way is to know that a real world class successful partnership is using it succesfully.

[mikeh]

inquiry, on Feb 27 2007, 12:09 PM, said:

A lot of the topics are clear... take the example auction mentioned above

1H - 2C
2D - 2H
3D - 3H

Assuming 2C is GF, assuming 2H sets trumps, assuming 3D is cue bid (first or second round control), then 3H must show controls in both black suits, and one must be a first round control (but not necessarily the ace as ken said, a spade void is possible). I cue-bid that way.. I ahve additional clue here as well. Opener does not have the club Queen the way I bid, or I would have cue-bid 3C over 2H.

Responder without black controls (one has to be first round) would bid 4H over 3D to avoid getting opener too excited. The fact that ken's book discusses such auctions suggest it might clearly be worth a read.

But many play 2H as waiting, and 3D as promisng five and not a cue-bid, so these interpretation are, as others pointed out, system/agreement specific.

Still others play 2♥ as agreeing ♥s and 3♦ as indicating a 5 card suit, usually with substance, so that responder can start seeing slam potential... cue bids are fine, and I have often posted that most advancing players would be better off learning to cooperate in descriptive slam investigations rather than resort early and often to keycard. But there are ways to describe important playing strength features of the hand without everything being a cue bid, especially at low levels when shape is being sorted out. Cue-bids tell us whether we are in danger of losing top tricks, but shapae bids help us count winners.... and slams don't make just because we have all the controls: we still need long suit winners (which can be ruffs, of course).

I don't mean, by this post, to denigrate either Ben or Ken... and I would never (I hope) criticize someone's book without reading it. From what I have gleaned from the posts here and from Ken's other posts (in which he sometimes refers to his theories) he seems to have some interesting ideas.


I also recognize that Ken has pointed out that he was working within space constraints and that the book was primarily written as a form of self-exploration: of codifying and assessing methods that interested him. As such, it is unrealistic to expect his book to be a treatise on expert practice. Also, the title does not suggest that it is such a treatise... even tho I can understand why a prospective purchaser, with no opportunity to browse more than a few pages might hope/expect that it were.

I suspect that any advancing player interested in exploring alternative slam bidding approaches would benefit from Ken's book even if and perhaps especially if the reader ended up disagreeing with most of his ideas. One cannot disagree with a detailed exposition of a subject without thinking about alternatives, and so the very process of saying to oneself: 'I don't like that approach compared to....(fill in the blank) requires that one evaluate both possibilites and make a conscious choice.

Having said that, I am not going to buy the book.... not because I disagree with Ken's ideas.. but because I already have my own ideas that are quite detailed and mesh well with the habits of the stronger players with whom I play. For me to adopt Ken's ideas, I'd not only have to adopt his system in part but also force my partners to change as well.

If you are not in that situation, or if your partners are as avid as you to explore new possibilities, then the cost of reading the book is modest compared to the value of thinking about a different approach than that which you currently use: even if you end up rejecting the new approach.

[ArcLight]

>Do you really want another book on slams explaining conventions such as RCKB, deniel cue bid, asking bids, byzintine etc ?

No. As I wrote I wanted a book on standard / common expert cue bidding, other than traditional Ace first.


>I didnt read the book but i admire Ken for being so brave writing such a book.

It generally helps to read a book before offering comments on it.

I myself tend to dislike offering opinions without knowing what I'm talking about


>Im also sure it was very hard to do alot of work needed for such a book.

So what? Does that mean one should pay money, because it was hard work for someone else? I didn't say the book sucks or Ken was lazy or stupid. I said I was very disappointed with it. Its not the standard cue bidding systems widely used by experts. Its someones own pet theories, who is not an expert.

If someone wrote a book on their own invented bidding system, I wouldn't read it, even if it was a good system, and they invested a lot of time.


>I agree with you on one thing, i would like to know that this system really work and for that the only way is to know that a real world class successful partnership is using it succesfully.

I never said that either. What I want is the system(s) many experts use today.

[ArcLight]

>As such, it is unrealistic to expect his book to be a treatise on expert practice.

Why? Thats what I was looking for? And what I think others are also.


>I also recognize that Ken has pointed out that he was working within space constraints and that the book was primarily written as a form of self-exploration: of codifying and assessing methods that interested him.

If I had known that up front I would never have paid money for the book.

This is a book review forum.
I see many here defending Ken. I am not personally attacking him. I see him attacked plenty on other forums, which is sad.


I am very disappointed with the book.
I read A LOT of bridge books, and I like to think I recognize good ones.
I think this book may be of "interest" to a few, but not of value to the vast majority.


Save your money and buy
Ron Klingers Cue Bidding to Slam (Intermediate)
and
Alan Moulds Step by Step Slam Bidding (more advanced than Klingers)

(I didn't really care for Hugh Kelseys book on Slam Bidding)

[inquiry]

ArcLight, on Feb 27 2007, 03:36 PM, said:

I am very disappointed with the book.
I read A LOT of bridge books, and I like to think I recognize good ones.
I think this book may be of "interest" to a few, but not of value to the vast majority.


Save your money and buy
Ron Klingers Cue Bidding to Slam  (Intermediate)
and
Alan Moulds  Step by Step Slam Bidding  (more advanced than Klingers)

If you are disappointed not all is lost. I am sure someone would be willing to pay used book price to take it off you hands if the book rate mailing is not too expensive. And since you have slammed it, they can't expect their money back should they also not like it.

BTW, on your quote to mikeh

Quote

>I didnt read the book but i admire Ken for being so brave writing such a book.

It generally helps to read a book before offering comments on it.

I myself tend to dislike offering opinions without knowing what I'm talking about

Mike admired the EFFORT to write the book. He offered no opinion about the quality or content of the book, having not read it himself.

And to mike, the auction I gave was for people who start wtih cue-bidding. I gave but one example where people do not start cue-bidding, using an example where 2♥ did not even agree fully in hearts. I obviously didn't run the entire gambit of them.

[kenrexford]

ArcLight, on Feb 27 2007, 03:32 PM, said:

I said I was very disappointed with it. Its someones own pet theories, who is not an expert.

This one gets me going a tad. For a few reasons.

For one thing, I'm not sure what expectations were disappointed, as you knew who I was when you bought the book. If you "knew then" that I was "not an expert," how were your expectations shattered?

Second, what defines an expert? If you mean by "an expert" someone who is a professional bridge player, I cannot meet that requirement, nor did I ever claim to have that credential, anywhere.

Third, the ideas are not solely pet conventions that I came up with. Most of this material is relatively standard, or is minority but recognized as a legitimate convention used by some recognized experts by any standard. Further, my treatise is based upon works of people like Belladonna and Gitelman, with gaps filled in with thoughts of friends of mine who are professional bridge players who have published books of their own.

I just do not get one one your comments. You would not be interested in a book if it was well written and a good idea if the author was not an expert by your standards. And yet you knew this going in.

If an idea is good, why do a lack of titles negate the value?