[ArcLight]

>How did you get the book ? did you by it directly from steve ? how much did you pay for it ?


While Baron Barclay may be excellent, I have found that the #1 place to go for books is first

http://www.carlritner.com/

Carl Ritner has a ton of used or new books in various conditions.
I have probably spent several hundred dollars buying dozens books from him over the years.

In fact, I believe there is an unexplainable law of nature, which I call "Ritners Law". It works like this:

EVERY used / older Bridge book you buy else where will soon be ofered by Carl for less money. Its happened to me repeatedly

[Flame]

Thanks for the info, there are 2 problems, there is a new edition of the book and second this book cost much more in many places other then steve himself.

[kenrexford]

I am disappointed that you did not finish reading throught he book, and that I apparently used a writing technique that left you not following the material, Arclight.

When the 2NT cuebid is described, there is an ambiguous caveat added by the publisher that I feared would be misunderstood. If you read through the whole book, not just the first section, you see that the only exception (and hence the "rule") that I described is when the major is agreed but not GF.

You also gave some examples of cuebidding situations that "are not in the book." Apparently, the text was not clear enough for you, and maybe others, as all of these auctions are, I agree, basic, but they are covered and explained. If you read the section on inferential cuebidding, in which I describe in detail the many types of inferences, you would realize that some auctions that you did not see in the book are actually in the book and described nonetheless, perhaps later, after the first section.

Now, I'll grant that perhaps the specific auction of 1♥-P-3♥-P-4♣-P-4♦ is not in the book, for example. This is because I do not describe any auctions using a limit raise, as the core system I assume uses 3♣ for all limit raise hands, 3♥ being preemptive. However, the 4♦ bid, here, is a LTTC bid, described in the book, with an inference below the suit (spade control), described in the book, with diamond control not being promised for the LTTC bid, described in the book.

I am a tad confused by your assessment, after reading the first section only, that I have left a lot out a lot and have holes. The feedback I have received from many you might consider "true" experts was that if anything I might have covered too much ground, not too little. I only had 200 pages with which to work (that was the page limit). Maybe I could have covered cuebidding theory for precision players, Acol, and canape folks, given space, but I had to select a system and work from there, given the page limits. You just cannot cover every possible auction for every possible system with parameters like page limits.

This is why I set up the blog that someone referenced in another post. Many folks enjoyed my work and have been using the techniques, but strange situations might from time-to-time arise. So, I receive emails and respond to them, sometimes posting the discussion on line when this might be universally important. I even sometimes engage in leaps of imagination into the surreal extremes of theory, just to cover the issue in case anyone is crazy enough to go that far. I expected that holes would exist in the extremes of theory, but I'm surprised to read a review that sees too many holes.

[ArcLight]

>I am disappointed that you did not finish reading throught he book, and that I apparently used a writing technique that left you not following the material, Arclight.


I did skim the other sections. As this is an assortment of various methods one can use, I didn't think it was necessary to read them in detail all at once. I read the main part in detail. It was not the case of skimming 1/3 of the book and saying "I don't like it".

I did read the section on Inferential Cue bids, in detail. I think it's one of the most important aspects of Italian style cue bidding. I did not see the answer to my examples, thats why I posted them. There are no Limit Raise examples, only 2/1 examples. That ok, but I found some of the examples from the Belladonna article absent in the book.

Since screwing up cue bidding and slam bidding is very bad, I think its critical for an author to make everything clear, and not leave it for the reader to pick up on one key aspect - the further cue bidding after one pard has skipped a suit(s) implies coverage of those suits, but not the suit bid.

How do you handle continuations? This is a common occurence and a lot more useful to prospective users than some of the material in the later sections.

To put it inperspective, after reading the Klinger and Mould books, I felt comfortable using cue bidding. After reading this book I think there is potential, but too many gaps in the teaching material to feel comfortable using it. It doesn't strike me as complete, too many unanswered questions left to the user. Maybe thats the point - you can make whatever agreements you like.
Well that doesn't appeal to me - I want a guide. Like "this is the suggested basic system many pairs use".

When I first read the Belladonna article, there were some things that weren't clear to me. But some of the Inferential sequences did help more than those in the book.

My gut feeling is using this in a bidding room could be interesting, but I'd have to spend a lot of time fleshing out misunderstanding and gaps/holes that were not covered. Thats frustrating, because with more examples of basic sequences the time wsted would be cut down.

I would not be happy using a system where strange systems arrise from time to tme, leading to bad results, and these offset some of the gains. I'm not talking about a slam off 2 aces, or the AK, a sthat can happen accoring to the original users. If you use a more complex system and it overall gives better results even taking account the mixups, it still may not be worth using if its complex or memory intensive or yields just slightly better results.


One doesn't win by using slightly better conventions than the opponents*, you win by playing better bridge. [one can win by using methods the opponents are not familiar with - you are winning not becaus eyou are any good, but becaus eof surprise. You can think you are good, even though you are not]

* - unless you are both world class. When I'm ready to face Meckwell and Hamway and Fred then I'll think about more complex methods.

[kenrexford]

I agree with some of what you are saying, Arclight. This is a very complex set of agreemebnts that a partnership could use. I'm not so sure that this is beyond an advanced partnership to use. As an example, you suggested that my status is not that of a recognized expert, and yet I have had almost no problems with regular partners in using these techniques. The errors are not in remembering the techniques, but rather in occasional bad judgment. So, if little ole me can handle it, surely you could.

The reason I responded, however, was that I think you are being a tad unfair in your assessment, analysis, and review. Take three of your main objections:

1. You claim/imply that I only focus on GF auctions. Rather, I do not remotely limit my coverage to cuebidding only in 2/1 GF auctions. First, I cover cuebids in great detail in game-invitational auctions (limit raises); I do this in the context of using 3♣ for the limit raise. The principles are the same, just with added space for one route. Second, I cover cuebids in great detail in simple raise situations, even adding a concept of a serious 3NT by a hand limited to simple-raise values, with a special asking bid after that. I also cover cuebidding when slam seems impossible because of limited bids on both sides, cuebidding and serious 3NT (by the weak partner) after a double negative, cuebidding after picture jumps, cuebidding after preempts and weak twos, and many many other "weak auction" cuebidding techniques. Your skimming must have missed this.

2. The example of a principle you call a "bidding squeeze" does not even exist using my techniques. Without Last Train to Clarksvillle, 1♥-P-3♥-P-4♣-P-4♦ is an auction that requires the partnership to recognize that the spade control is the key control when cuebidding 4♦. In other words, the "bidding squeeze" creates as exception to the general rule. Using my techniques, however, this 4♦ cuebid is specifically defined as not showing or denying a diamond control, but rather confirming the possession of all contextually needed controls (spades) and showing inability to take over and RKCB the hand. Your objection assumes a different cuebidding style that you may have learned before, where the problem is not solved without an exception, rather than actually using the techniques I described, where the problem of the bidding squeeze is not there because definitions resolve that issue.

3. You had a problem with the comment that 2NT, a cuebid denying two top trumps, might have agreed partnership exceptions. If you had read through the rest of the book, rather than skimming it, you would see that the sole exception that I describe is a 2NT call after a passable raise of a major. The stated exception was that 2NT in this auction is the one call that allows the partnership to play in 3NT. Again, skimming missed this. Note that the comment was not what you quoted, namely "the players will have to decide for themselves." Rather, the comment (inserted by Ray Lee) was that "You should, however, make sure that you and partner identify any auction where you want to retain a natural 2NT call as an option." What you describe as uncertainty is actually a concession that some people may opt out of my absolute rule that 2NT always denies two top honors in trumps when in a GF auction. Allowing the reader to decide something with his partner that is different than what I recommend is not a failure to provide hard and fast rules.

Normally, I would resolve myself to let some people like the book, and comment favorably, and others to dislike the book, and comment unfavorably. But, when you give the book such rebuke with an analysis based upon skimming, and when your analysis is frightfully errant, I feel the need to comment.

You add another auction "not in the Rexford book" of

"1H-2C-2D-2H-3D-3H cue-bid in S and C (at least one 1st-round, else S and C Aces are missing)
(S Kx H Qxxx D Kx C AKxxx)"

Again, you are assessing with a skimming in a way that is completely off-base. This auction is almost bid-for-bid in the book, even with the one-top-one-second analysis. Furthermore, my cuebidding in this situation would have further definition discussed for this auction that you and even the Belladonna quote missed. As Opener showed good trumps, through his bypass of 2NT to bid 3♦, Responder's 3♥ would also show the third heart honor. Any other cuebid between 3♥ and 4♦ would also have guaranteed the spade-club combo you mention, but would deny the third heart (and would show whatever else that cue would show). I would know that this example hand povided by Belladonna included that heart Queen.

So, rather than not covering this issue like Belladonna, I actually covered it in much more detail than Belladonna did. Note that I commented on the Belladonna article as one of my sources when preparing my techniques.

When you review a book for others, and hammer the book as very poor, you might want to actually have read the book. Otherwise, there is a fair chance that you will get your analysis wrong, as seems to have happened here.

If you do read the entire book, and understand it, and still think it is a poor book, then I will respect your opinion.

[Chamaco]

ArcLight, on Feb 24 2007, 05:06 PM, said:

At least Belladonna is giving a rule when 2NT is showing the poor trumps.

Arc,
I am glad you liked the document by Belladonna.

However, in my opinion, all these "pearls of wisdom" are closely linked to the system one is playing.

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

The reason why the Blue Team used conventions to show early the quality of trumps is that *in most auctions they did not use 4NT as an Ace-Asking method*.

Missing the keycard ask, they need to know at an early stage whether or not the trumps were good enough to investigate slam at a higher level.

===========

Switching from a 2/1 system vs a strong club system introduces some nuances that unusual for the standard 5 card major systems;
the same occurs if you consider a canapè system.
Playing canapè means introducing even more nuances (which I won't start discussing here).
And the Big Club systems played by the Blue Team were mostly canapè systems, so it is logical that you might find in their writings some bidding sequences where the information that needs to be exchanged is different from a "Natural 5cM" system.

===========

To make a long story short, I did not read Ken's book, but it seems to me that discussing in-depth all these cuebidding methods is impossible in an ordinary book, because it would mean to discuss also the foundation of each and every systems.

Indeed, given the limited space available for a book, most texts on cuebidding enter the details for one family of systems (usually "standard" 5cM, or - in some cases, some variants of Precision or the like), and cannot help but just scratching the surface for other methods.

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 :-)

Ciao

Mauro

[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.