[straube]

We're in a GF and spades are agreed.

Partner cue bids 4D to show a diamond control and deny a club control.

If I rebid 4H it shows a heart control and a club control. If I rebid 4S it denies either a heart or club control or both.

Shouldn't it be

4H shows a club control and denies a heart control
4S denies a club control and is ambiguous about a heart control
4N etc promises both heart and club controls

Maybe this is more or less what is meant by "last train"

Any info/comment on this? I've always had a hard time with cue bidding auctions

[apollo1201]

I think a more recent tendency is that partner could have both minors controlled but wanted to discover wether you had H controlled.

Cuebidding 4C to hear you bid 4D wouldn’t help them. Even if they bid 4S now to deny H control, the decision would be on you next to go on or not, without being sure of maintaining the rest of the auction under control. For the same reason, they could have bid 3NT to discover the C control.

This new method probably contradicts some other ones (serious or frivolous 3NT, last train...).

I guess there will be no concensus here on the meanings and follow-ups based on the philosophy / systems of the different players. Be sure to be on the same wavelength as partner in this delicate exercice of slam investigations!

[etha]

I regard your second suggestion as normal

[Stephen Tu]

For me,
signoff 4S = no club control (heart control who knows, irrelevant at thispoint)last train 4h = club control, ambiguous about heart control, could have heart control but not really strong or appropriate to really take control. If partner wants to force to slam opposite heart control can try 5s at this point or continue to cue or can sign off with min. FredG suggested "lackwood" on these auctions as responses to 5M.

[fromageGB]

My comment : I had a hard time playing positive cues, but now play negative or denial cues, and I think that works fine.
3NT = non-serious, any suit is serious and has all lower controls, but denies the one bid. Partner and you then continue to denial cue holding partner's denied suit, signing off otherwise. If the serious cuer has the final control, he ace asks, etc ; if partner has it he ace asks if your methods do not have a "captain", or give his ace response if they do.

What downside does this have that I have not come across yet? My initial thinking was "denial cue pinpoints a weakness", but then so does a positive cue.

[straube]

 fromageGB, on 2019-April-09, 12:24, said:

My comment : I had a hard time playing positive cues, but now play negative or denial cues, and I think that works fine.
3NT = non-serious, any suit is serious and has all lower controls, but denies the one bid. Partner and you then continue to denial cue holding partner's denied suit, signing off otherwise. If the serious cuer has the final control, he ace asks, etc ; if partner has it he ace asks if your methods do not have a "captain", or give his ace response if they do.

What downside does this have that I have not come across yet? My initial thinking was "denial cue pinpoints a weakness", but then so does a positive cue.

Any books on or links to this method? It makes a lot of sense to me. But for example, are the denials of both 1st and 2nd round control?

[pescetom]

The dilemma when first cuebid is in the second side suit was called "declarational squeeze" by Belladonna. I follow his very concrete solution: a cuebid of the third side suit affirms control in the first and says nothing about the third. So 4H here says "I control clubs" and no more. 4S is signoff and 4nt RKCB.

[fromageGB]

 straube, on 2019-April-09, 20:43, said:

Any books on or links to this method? It makes a lot of sense to me. But for example, are the denials of both 1st and 2nd round control?

I don't know of any books, and I first heard of the idea from the respected Zelandakh on these forums.

How you play cue bids is not related to the method, surely, because in either positive or negative cues you can choose to use first, or first and second, controls. I guess it depends on what you do. If you played first only you need a second round to cover second round controls (if you bothered) but I play them as a bid is first AND second denial, ie you have 2+ cards and you do not have the ace or king. My cue bidding space starts at 3M+2 because I play 3M+1 as non-serious, ie with hearts trumps, 3S is non-serious, and 3NT is a denial cue in spades; and the bidding space ends at 4M-1, because I use 4M+1 as "ace asking". Cues are used this way really only as a check that you do not jointly have a suit wide open before ace asking, and of course the use of a cue implies slam desire.

I am very happy with it, but not all partners are prepared to do something different!

Personally I do this for major trumps only as I have so few GF sequences agreeing a minor at 3m, but I guess it could be used for minors, and 4m+1 for aces.

I use the same principle for kings if all aces are discovered, ie bidding the suit denies that king, and there is no asking for kings because if all aces are present you just start the king denials. This frees up a bid in the process : I use 5NT wherever it occurs in the king sequence to be a denial of grand slam desire on the part of the slamming originator, or denial of additional unexpected tricks if that bid falls to partner. The bid of 5NT or its bypass can then help the grand decision, and its bid can cut the king discovery dead.

[fromageGB]

Expanding on the final point of the above post, this allows the use of king discovery to be started without complete conviction that you want to be in grand. Playing traditional methods, you need to be sure you want to be in 7 before you can start king asking. The availability of 5NT means that you can go beyond aces more freely, and discover the grand when partner has a bit extra (beyond aces and kings to be discovered) which you had no reason to expect initially. If you have the spade ace, you bid 5NT and partner can sign off in 6 with no hidden assets; if partner bids 5NT you bid 6 to stop - or go on with the king process of course if kings are all you need.

[straube]

I'm very interested in this. A problem I frequently have for whichever method we settle on is that quite frequently we've established a GF in hearts at the bid of 3S. This means we have one bid less before bypassing game than for spades. Hm. I feel like retaining 3N as frivolous is more important than a cue bid (or denial cue bid) for spades but idk.

[pescetom]

 straube, on 2019-April-10, 12:51, said:

I'm very interested in this. A problem I frequently have for whichever method we settle on is that quite frequently we've established a GF in hearts at the bid of 3S. This means we have one bid less before bypassing game than for spades. Hm. I feel like retaining 3N as frivolous is more important than a cue bid (or denial cue bid) for spades but idk.

That's another dilemma identified by Belladonna - if you assign precedence to 3♠ then you have to give up 3NT, and if you assign precedence to 3NT then you have to give up ascertaining spades below game level. His suggestion (again concrete) was to do the latter.

If you play in a highly committed partnership then you could solve this by inverting 3♠ and 3NT. So now 3♠ indicates a non-serious hand (partner can bid 3NT to show spades control or skip it to deny) and 3NT shows spades control in a serious hand. I've not yet found anyone crazy enough to do this

[fromageGB]

 straube, on 2019-April-10, 12:51, said:

I'm very interested in this. A problem I frequently have for whichever method we settle on is that quite frequently we've established a GF in hearts at the bid of 3S. This means we have one bid less before bypassing game than for spades. Hm. I feel like retaining 3N as frivolous is more important than a cue bid (or denial cue bid) for spades but idk.

It seems unusual for a 3♠ bid to set up a game force in hearts, but I play natural methods! Obviously I don't know your sequences and what other bids mean, but could 3♠ be reserved for a heart GF and non-serious, while higher bids are cues? But obviously not, or you would have done that.

Given your conundrum my preference would be 3NT by the next hand is non-serious (frivolous) if the 3♠ bidder is unlimited, 4ms are denial cues, and control in spades is left unknown. This is no worse that those who play 4M-1 as a non-control bid, whether they call it a last train or whatever. If you thought spades was a more important control to discover than the first real minor suit bid by the partnership (if any), you could cue that suit as a denial cue in spades.

(I'm assuming partner of the 3♠ bidder has not limited his hand, because then you do not need non-serious - you just bid 4♥, and 3NT is denial cue in spades.)

[fromageGB]

 pescetom, on 2019-April-11, 04:15, said:

I've not yet found anyone crazy enough to do this

This is normal and not crazy. I do, as detailed in the main paragraph of post #8. It comes naturally if you do this everywhere where hearts is involved :

• Kaplan inversion - 1♥ 1♠ is the "forcing NT", while 1NT shows spades
  
• 1♥ 2♠ - this is the "Jacoby 2NT" replacement, which allows you to keep total symmetry in response to majors
  
• Transfer walsh - 1♣ 1♦(hearts), 1♥(2 or 3 cards) 1♠(denies spades, so a transfer puppet to 1NT, while 1NT (less frequent) shows a less than invitational both majors 44xx)
  
• hearts agreed ... 3♠ is the "non-serious 3NT"
  
• hearts agreed ... 4♠ is ace asking

Maybe you are crazy if you don't.