[ArcLight]

What do you think of this?

When cue bidding for a slam, 3NT has no natural meaning, so make up one.

In Ron Klingers "Modern Losing Trick Count" he has a section where he suggests 3NT after a Limit Raise (10-12 support points and 4 trumps) of a Major to deny first round control of the Club suit. The idea is this saves a level of bidding as responder can bid 4 ♣ if he has it. If reponder is also lacking the Ace of ♣ you find out quickly.

Here is how he describes the cue bidding:

1♥ - 3♥ -

4♠ = cue bidding the ♠ Ace
3NT = Denying the ♣ Ace and the ♠ Ace (since 3♠ was not bid)
4♣ = cue bidding both the Aces of ♣ and ♠
4♦ = cue bidding all outside aces

The downside is if you can't just cue bid the ♦Ace, you have to first cue bid 3NT, then later cubid ♦.


1♠ - 3♠ -
3NT = Denying the ♣ Ace
4♣ = cue bidding ♣ Ace
4♦ = cue both the Aces of ♣ and ♦

[joker_gib]

I suppose this is 4♣ and 4♦ as it is difficult to bid 3♣ or 3 ♦ on 3M !

Sorry but I don't really see any advantage to this method

What is the problem with let's say

1M-3M
3♠ : ♠ cue on ♥
4♣ : ♣ cue and not ♠
4♦ : ♦ cue denying ♠ and ♣ cues ???

This saves 3NT for other purpose : shortness ask, suggesting 3NT contract or what ever you want ...

[Echognome]

I personally prefer the 3NT cuebid as showing good trumps. Then a cuebid of a minor would deny a good trump holding. That might be more useful anyway if slam is going to be in the picture. You will have to discuss with your partner what constitutes a good or bad trump holding.

I don't think after a 4-card limit raise you will want to play in 3NT often enough to use that. However, if you are playing 4 card majors it might be more useful.

[cherdano]

Jlall, on Sep 9 2005, 03:43 PM, said:

I prefer a variant of serious 3N... 3N is serious about playing 3N

Wow, you are a serious player Justin!

[ArcLight]

Jlall, on Sep 9 2005, 08:43 AM, said:

I prefer a variant of serious 3N... 3N is serious about playing 3N

Justin,

When is the last time 3NT was the correct contract after a 1♠ - 3♠ or 1♥-3♥ sequence? Especially since the 3♥ may be based on ruffing values, as opposed to pure HCP. I think 3NT would be a very very rare contract.


>I personally prefer the 3NT cuebid as showing good trumps.

Wont that come out when you get to RKCBW? If you have weak trumps, you still have 9, and cue bidding will be revealing in the other suits. If pard has 2 Aces, and 2 key cards, you sign off in 5 of the major. Only if one opponent has AKQ do you get set. Possible, but not likely.


>This saves 3NT for other purpose : shortness ask, suggesting 3NT contract or what ever you want

You are now at the 4 level. Partner didnt make a splinter, though he may be short, with just not enough for a game force. What would 3NT show? Shortness and few HCP? This would imply you have 3 suits well controlled, and are woried about xxx in the 4th suit. It doesnt seem that pard will often have 0/1 in that suit.
And if they do, then they have few HCP. This method can work, but it requires opener to have a monster, and pard to have shortness. I think it will be infrequent, and a different use for 3NT should be found.


I dont think Your examples really work as well. Or maybe I just dont understand them.

1 ♥ - 3♥
What do you propose for the meaning of 3♠, 4♣, 4♦?

With standard cue bidding they show a first round control, and by implication deny control of a skipped over suit.


Its more likely that opener, who has a big hand, will have the aces, and want to know what responder (with the Limited hand) holds. Hence the space saving 3NT.


What is "Serious 3NT"?
This is from www.bridgeguys.com but doesnt explain it in any detail. It seems to give up on cue bidding.

Serious 3 No Trump
A slam bidding method which was conceived of by Mr. Eric Rodwell. After an 8-card Major suit fit has been established below 3 No Trump, a bid of 3 No Trump is a serious slam invitation, and therefore forcing. Certain partnerships play that the 3 No Trump bid is a serious and strong slam try to which the responses of 4 Clubs or 4 Diamonds signify a mild slam try; the response of 4 Hearts offers the partner a choice of games. In other partnerships, the 3 No Trump bid is a so-called non-serious slam try, and the cuebid is the serious and strong slam try.

[joker_gib]

Jlall, on Sep 9 2005, 03:43 PM, said:

I prefer a variant of serious 3N... 3N is serious about playing 3N

LOL

I like this "complex" system !

[Walddk]

ArcLight, on Sep 9 2005, 03:54 PM, said:

With standard cue bidding they show a first round control, and by implication deny control of a skipped over suit.

Standard where? North America? It's not standard in Europe (except Britain perhaps). Here it shows any control: A, K, singleton or void. The Italian way of cue bidding (mixed), 1st or 2nd round control. I strongly recommend that you use that method. There is a world of a difference if responder doesn't know about any kind of control after this auction:

1♥ - 3♥
4♣

Can opener have ♠K or a singleton? He can if 3♠ only denies the ace, and that will leave responder in the dark. Playing cue bids the Italian way responder will know for sure that opener has no spade control at all, and therefore he has an easy sign off if he doesn't have one either.

Roland

[hrothgar]

The idea of using 3NT as an artifical bid following the auction 1M - 3M is fairly standard. Others have already noted that Klinger's concept is very similar to serious 3NT and suffers from mainy of the same limitations (most notably the loss of the "natural" 3NT bid)

Its unclear to me whether its better to use 3NT to convey information about strength or compress the controls...

[FrancesHinden]

I don't cue bid in this auction, I play trial bids which I find much more helpful.
So 1M - limit raise - 4C is a natural slam try.

People are so hung up on Aces, they forget to look for 12 tricks.

(OK, we don't play this, we play some slightly more complex shape relays after a limit raise, but the concept is still there: it's more important to look for 12 tricks than immediately just controls; controls come later)

[ArcLight]

1♥ - 3♥ - 3NT

>You'd be surprised how often its right at MP

4♥ making 4 = 420, while 3NT making 3 = 400. Frequently 4 of a major is a better contract at MP than 3NT. 3NT can be good with extra HCP.


>Standard where? North America? It's not standard in Europe (except Britain perhaps). Here it shows any control: A, K, singleton or void. The Italian way of cue bidding (mixed), 1st or 2nd round control. I strongly recommend that you use that method.

Roland, you are certainly more familiar with this than I am, but I wonder if thats really better? If responder makes a cue bid that turns out to be in a key suit, and declarer goes onto slam, and that cue bid turns out to have been a king in dummy, you may go down, if the Ace is over dummies King.



>People are so hung up on Aces, they forget to look for 12 tricks.

Aces Shmaces, just give me HCP and distribution, right?

I disagree, you may have 15 tricks, but unfortunately the opponents have 2, and they get to take theirs first.

A K Q x x x J 10 x x x
x x x x
A
A K x x x Q J 10 x x

Is this a good Spade slam?

1♠ - 3♠ - 4♣ ... 6♠

What will get lead? A Heart or a Diamond


Note: When I say standard I mean standard in North America. (is there really civilization elsewhere? I thought the rest of the world was covered by grasslands, forests, Woolly Mammoths and Saber toothed tigers!

This cue bidding is from Ron Klingers book, he is Australian, but I guess he counts as part of teh "Standard" world which consists of North America, Great Britain, and its former colonies. [what is the correct term for the former colonies of Great Britain? Commonwealth countries?]

[hrothgar]

ArcLight, on Sep 9 2005, 06:16 PM, said:

Roland, you are certainly more familiar with this than I am, but I wonder if thats really better? If responder makes a cue bid that turns out to be in a key suit, and declarer goes onto slam, and that cue bid turns out to have been a king in dummy, you may go down, if the Ace is over dummies King.

In my experience, the Italian cue bidding style is a clear winner when your investigating small slams. Your often able to stop at a low level when you find that some suit is wide open. The North American style works well when you're investigating grands.

I know which case happens more often...

[FrancesHinden]

ArcLight, on Sep 9 2005, 10:16 AM, said:

I disagree, you may have 15 tricks, but unfortunately the opponents have 2, and they get to take theirs first.

A K Q x x x J 10 x x x
x x x x
A
A K x x x Q J 10 x x

Is this a good Spade slam?

1♠ - 3♠ - 4♣ ... 6♠

Well on that hand I'd bid 1S - 4D - 5C - 5D - 5S
But if I started the way you suggest, East doesn't have to bid 6S over 4C, East is allowed to cue bid to show a suitable hand.

Quote

This cue bidding is from Ron Klingers book, he is Australian, but I guess he counts as part of teh "Standard" world which consists of North America, Great Britain, and its former colonies.  [what is the correct term for the former colonies of Great Britain?  Commonwealth countries?]

Andy Robson did a series of articles in the Times a year or so ago where he recommended trial bids in this auction. So I'm not exactly alone here.

I'm not going to start making up loads of hands, but if you've got something like

AKQxx
Q10xx
AKx
x

you want partner to concentrate on his heart holding, not just whether he has the Ace or King.

[han]

I also prefer a cuebid to show any kind control. I think that this is also the mainstream expert approach in North America, is that correct?

Even though I think that using 3NT as a suggestion to play there after a major suit raise, I'm willing to give up on this after we have found a major suit fit at the 3-level to gain more options for slam bidding. Here is why:

1) IMPs are my main interest. I'm not serious enough to play two different systems depending on form of scoring. (So I only change style/judgement, not partnership agreements)

2) When we find the major suit fit at the 3-level, it is unlikely that we will be able to determine with great confidence that 3NT is the right spot. I'm willing to give up on 3NT in this case.

Note that I play 1M-2C-2D-2M as a 3-card limit raise. In this case we have plenty room to explore, and I'm certainly not willing to give up on playing in 3NT.

[mike777]

My .02 cents worth.

1) Whatever very rare problem hand you are trying to fix is not worth the time or energy. Note you already know you have a 9 card fit and pard has an 8LTC hand.
2) I tried getting fancy with having cuebids show any kind of control many years ago and the confusion just was not worth the hassal. See Kantar's numerous funny disasters at the highest levels of bridge.
3) Have found just showing my first round controls easiest along with the rare K in partner's long suit is more than enough for cuebidding 99%+.

Good luck.

[DJNeill]

Hi all,
I know that garozzo (sillafu on bbo) plays this 3N as denying 1st round club control currently with his girlfriend.

Thanks,
Dan

[han]

Thanks for your .02 cents Mike, but you can keep them:

1) Whatever very rare problem hand you are trying to fix is not worth the time or energy. Note you already know you have a 9 card fit and pard has an 8LTC hand.

Trying to find out whether slam is good does not only occur on "rare problem hands"! It is a very frequent problem in bridge, and making clear and good agreements with partner about slam investigation is winning bridge, not overly scientific nonsense.

2) I tried getting fancy with having cuebids show any kind of control many years ago and the confusion just was not worth the hassal. See Kantar's numerous funny disasters at the hightest levels of bridge.

To my mind, cuebidding only aces is too fancy. I have to think really hard to see if I'm missing two tricks in a suit. It shouldn't be hard to give numerous funny disasters at the highest levels of bridge for players who use this approach.

3) Have found just showing my first round controls easiest along with the rare K in partner's long suit is more than enough for cuebidding 99%+.

I'm impressed with your excellent judgement, I know nobody who's slam bidding is 99%+. I'm a bit sceptical though.

You claim to get your advice from the best of the best. I would think that these pairs have very clear agreements about exactly what a cuebid shows. I doubt that it is as easy as you make it sound.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Sep 9 2005, 07:25 PM, said:

My .02 cents worth.

1) Whatever very rare problem hand you are trying to fix is not worth the time or energy. Note you already know you have a 9 card fit and pard has an 8LTC hand.
2) I tried getting fancy with having cuebids show any kind of control many years ago and the confusion just was not worth the hassal. See Kantar's numerous funny disasters at the highest levels of bridge.
3) Have found just showing my first round controls easiest along with the rare K in partner's long suit is more than enough for cuebidding 99%+.

Good luck.

the "rare" problem is lack of bidding space...
personally, I've foudn that lack of bidding space is a problem for most systems

If you don't like complexity, thats fine and dandy, but don't try to pretend that the problem doesn't exist