Re: Cue-bidding for slam: Aces or Voids?

On Sep 8, 3:03 pm, "ma...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <ma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here is a passage from Marshall Miles' Bridge From the Top:
"The first cuebid almost always shows length, so that the cue bidder's
partner can determine how well the hands fit." He criticized
cuebidding high card and shortness controls indiscriminately: "if one
partner can cuebid a singleton and the other has the king, or vice
versa, how can either player tell how well the hands fit?"

This advice, similar to that written much earlier by Miles, always
seemed convincing to me. Challenged on this approach, I began reading
other contemporary books on slam bidding. Ron Klinger, for example, inCue-Bidding to Slams wrote:

"Where the choice is to cue-bid an ace or a void as a first-round
control, the 'cheapest-first' rule applies. The same approach is used
when the decision is king versus singleton..."

Setting aside exceptions (and Miles himself offers some), and setting
aside whether to reserve the first cue for first-round controls:

1. Which approach (call them "high card control" versus "shortness
control") is generally more useful for advancing but non-expert
players?

2. Which approach is more prevalent among expert players using methods
similar to two-over-one game-forcing?

3. What other bidding agreements impact this issue?

As to #3: If you have a method for showing all controls in a
particular suit of interest (such as one where you hold two quick
losers), control bids in suits would tend to deny two quick losers.

One such method as this is San Francisquito:
1st step: Neither the ace nor the king
2nd step: King, not the ace
3rd step: Ace, not the king
4th step: Both the ace and the king
Raise: Void

What determines a specific cotnrol inquiry? How about a jump in a new
suit by a hand already known to be strong before the jump or a jump in
a new suit with a game force in place or the odd suit when one partner
or the other has shown a two suiter.

Another way to do controls is by what is known as the "Viking" method.
You show the cheapest suit in which you hold either both the ace and
the king or in which you hold neither.


As to #1 and #2:
I would say that the usual practice is to show high cards when
possible and shortness when you are slam curious, but for some reason
don't have, can't afford, or don't have a good way of showing high
cards.

It is often more valuable to show shortness only AFTER you recognize
that you won't lose the first two tricks in suits because of high
cards.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 1C (strong)-2D response as balanced 8-10
    ... bidding notrump if it's in opener's suit. ... of course we don't want responder grabbing the notrump too often. ... Slams require tricks and controls. ... Knowing partner's high card strength allows me to estimate how many ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
  • Re: "Pass the Buck" Relay after Game Force: GCC legal?
    ... Keep in mind that, over a 5-card major suit opener, the most balanced ... Responder could bid on with 18+). ... I had proposed that Opener could ask for controls in a specific suit, ... 1st step No ace or king ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
  • Re: A simple cue bid system?
    ... > Are you saying that you are using 3 over 1 Jump Shifts as Game forcing ... > in the new suit or the Opener's suit? ... > 1) controls only in a specific suit (Your slam prospects live or die ... > ace and a king, ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
  • Re: Ralph Rabbidge and relativity of simultaneity
    ... new clothes weren't invisible, they simply weren't there. ... this is a magic suit." ... Naturally, the King not wanting to appear a fool, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • notice as well as Terrances fare
    ... I was advocating to seat you some of my negative hens. ... We suit them, then we ... Julieta never controls until Ahmad ... and they dramatically light Afif too. ...
    (sci.crypt)