[benlessard]

Assuming ♠ is trumps and you either bypass 3NT or someone just bid 3NT to show a serious hand. Your first cuebid option is 4C.

If you are doing italian cuebids (first or 2nd round controls) a show approach work better.

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing
My link didnt handle the editing that was done previously.

C+H on the X axis mean the first player to bid over 3NT got the ♣&♥C ctrls.

CDS mean 4C,4D,4S

CHN mean 4C,4H,4NT

If we look at the case where the first player got a D control and the 2nd got ctrl in C+H
using standard method it would go

4D--?? (4D show a D cue but no C cue)
and right now we could ask for aces or we could bid 4H (implying a C but sk for H ctrl) and bid 4NT later. This is what i call a 2way.

using denial it would go.

4C (deny C ctrl but at least one ctrl in the red, with no ctrol in the side suit you just bid 4S)
now 4D ask for where is the side control.

4H= no H ctrl so D ctrl
4S= H ctrl but no D ctrl
4NT+= ctrl in both reds

However you see that the denial method lose the 2way option.

If we look at the case where the first player got a H ctrl and 2nd got a C+D ctrl and enough value to rkc if you have all the ctrl.

In std it will go
4H-4NT

in denial it will go

4C-4D-4S-4NT (no C cue but at least a red cue, where is it, its in H, im good)

but in denial you also have a last train option,
4C--4H (no C cue but at least a red cue, i need a H cue and extras)

When you compare everything in the chart except disclosure consideration you see that a show method is better than a denial method.

However if you do the same chart for Kings ask you will see that a denial method is slightly better than a show method.
http://bridgewinners...-scan-part-one/

♠ is still trump and 5NT= show all the keycards +♠Q

in a show method

6NT all the side kings
6S= no side kings
6H= ♥K only
6D= ♦K may or may not have the ♥K
6C= ♣K may or may not have another king

in a denial method

6NT=3K
6S=0K
6H= ♣K &♦K
6D= ♣K may or may not have ♥K (deny K♦)
6C= deny K♣ but show one or 2 red king.


if we compare we see that 6NT,6S,6H,6D are equivalent in term of information and continuations.

However if we look at 6C

standard method K show,k ask..............................................denial

6C-6D = do you have ♦K...................................................wich red K do you have

6C-6D-6S = only ♣K .........................................................only ♥K

6C-6D-6H = ♣K+♥K, no ♦K................................................deny ♥K so by inference only ♦K

6C-6D-6NT = ♣K+♦K ..............................................................both red K

6C-6S = I needed the 3K.....................................................I needed the ♣K for 7S



6C-6H = do you have ♥K ?.....................................................free for something like.. either red K is fine but i need some extras also.

So denial gain one sequence.


My idea is to combine the 2 using a turbo method. When you are in a 2way situation bidding 4NT or higher directly= even number of keycards temporizing = odds number in both cases you do the Q of trumps and K in denials at the 5 level.

1S-2D
2H-3H (no void)
3S-4C (2 top 3 in S, C cue serious)
4D-?? (D cue)

now...

4H= no H cue but want to rkc
4S= opener need extras and H cue to keep bidding
4NT= even number of keycards no Q of trumps
5C = even number of keycard Q of trumps, no 2nd round in C
5D = even number of keycards, Q of trumps, 2nd round in C but not in D
5H = even number of keycards, ♠Q,2nd round in minors, not in H.
5S = even number of keycards, Q♠ 2nd round in every side suit (or none at all)

Now if responder got an odd number of keycards he just fake a H ask.

1S-2D
2H-3H (no void)
3S-4C (2 top 3 in S, C cue serious)
4D-4H (D cue, i need H ctrl)
4S-?? (no,

4NT= odd number of keycards no Q of trumps
5C = odd number of keycard Q of trumps, no 2nd round in C
5D = odd number of keycards, Q of trumps, 2nd round in C but not in D
5H = odd number of keycards, ♠Q,2nd round in minors, not in H.
5S = odd number of keycards, Q♠ 2nd round in every side suit (or none at all)

Ive tested this on a couple of hands it look nice.

xx
Txxx
Kxx
AKJx


AQJx
AKQx
AJxx
x

1D---1H
3S---4C (exactly singleton in one of the black since 4C and 4D would be voids, no cue in S but cue in clubs)
??

now..

4D= i have S covered but i need a D ctrl (or i got an odd number of keycards)
4H= no S ctrl
4S = even number of keycards noQ of trumps
4NT = even+Q♥ no 2nd round in ♠
5C = even+Q+2nd round♠ no 2nd round in C
5D = even+Q+2nd round in black no 2nd round of ♦
5H = even+Q 2nd round everywhere.

With an odd number of keycards opener would temporize with 4D.

4D-4H
??

4S = odd number of keycards noQ of trumps
4NT = odd+Q♥ no 2nd round in ♠
5C = odd+Q+2nd round♠ no 2nd round in C
5D = odd+Q+2nd round in black no 2nd round of ♦
5H = odd+Q 2nd round everywhere.

obviously if you temporize and partner ask for keycards you reply normally.

Note that any player can directly show his even keycards as long as he cannot have a void in his hand.
Yuo also need to be able to temporize (2way,3way) if S is trump and your at 4H, 4NT is regular rkc. Its only when your making a "jump" to 4NT that it show even keycards.

[Zelandakh]

benlessard, on 2017-January-17, 11:58, said:

If you are doing italian cuebids (first or 2nd round controls) a show approach work better.

I disagree. You just have to have a more consistent approach.

benlessard, on 2017-January-17, 11:58, said:

If we look at the case where the first player got a D control and the 2nd got ctrl in C+H
using denial it would go.

If the first player has the serious slam interest it goes:
4♣ = serious + no club control
... - 4♦ = club control, no diamond control
4♥ = diamond control, no heart control
... - 4NT = RKCB (or give direct key card response if playing that method)

If the second player has the serious slam interest it goes:
3NT = frivolous slam interest
... - 4♦ = serious, club control, no diamond control
4♥ = diamond control, no heart control
... - 4NT = RKCB

Very simple and it always works.

[nullve]

benlessard, on 2017-January-17, 11:58, said:

If you are doing italian cuebids (first or 2nd round controls) a show approach work better.

Quibble: Both your "show" approach and your "deny" approach are hybrid show/deny approaches:

benlessard, on 2017-January-17, 11:58, said:

If we look at the case where the first player got a D control and the 2nd got ctrl in C+H
using standard method it would go

4D--?? (4D show a D cue but no C cue)
and right now we could ask for aces or we could bid 4H (implying a C but sk for H ctrl) and bid 4NT later. This is what i call a 2way.

using denial it would go.

4C (deny C ctrl but at least one ctrl in the red, with no ctrol in the side suit you just bid 4S)

[benlessard]

"I disagree. You just have to have a more consistent approach."

Show me what can be improved on the std way. Its mechanically quite simple, for cases where if both side got a "hole" EX both are missing the D ctl or DK (you need to signoff show is always better.

For cases where even if both side are missing the DK you may still be able to go further deny is better.


"Very simple and it always works."

But slightly inferior.

Ignore the frivolous/serious 3Nt since it nearly symmetrical in the long run.

4C (deny may have zero side cue)---??
----4D = deny D control confirm C control
----4H = confirm C+D need H
----4S = to play (we both dont havea club ctrl)

4C--4D--?? (denyC,show C&deny D)
--------4S No D control
--------4H D control but no H control
--------4NT control in both red

4C--4H--4S= no H control (4H is show C+D ask for H)
4C--4H--4NT = H control

However if you use

4C(deny but at least one control)

You can get
4D asking for one or both red ctrl
4H asking for H ctrl and extras (last train)

In short playing denial whats the best use of

3NT---4S

Do you play 4S as having no ctrls or 4S as having a C+D+H control but not wanting to ask for keycards (lol)?
I guess its possible to play 4S as no controls and dead minimum and to play 4C as sometimes no ctrl but no dead minimum.
I think its clear that the last train cases where you need a H control and extras is worth more.

Anyway its irrelevant since the show method give you more bidding sequences than either denial method.

[benlessard]

In retrospect with a denial method I think you can play

4C = no C cue may have no cue at all
4H = no H cue
4S = i need a H cue and extras

But i think its simpler and more logical that 3NT--4S= no cue at all and 3NT-4C no cue in clubs but at least one red cue.

Again i dont see how any of these method will be better than std show anyway.

[nullve]

benlessard, on 2017-January-18, 12:29, said:

Do you play 4S as having no ctrls or 4S as having a C+D+H control but not wanting to ask for keycards (lol)?

Why doesn't it make sense to play

...3N-4♠ = C+D+H control, no extras, NF
...3N-4N = C+D+H control, extras, RKC

if it makes sense to play

...4♣-4♦-4♥ = no H control, extras (F to RKC opposite H control)
...4♣-4♦-4♠ = no H control, no extras, NF

?

[benlessard]

nullve, on 2017-January-18, 13:21, said:

Why doesn't it make sense to play

...3N-4♠ = C+D+H control, no extras, NF
...3N-4N = C+D+H control, extras, RKC

if it makes sense to play

...4♣-4♦-4♥ = no H control, extras (F to RKC opposite H control)
...4♣-4♦-4♠ = no H control, no extras, NF

?

if 3NT is non serious you would like to signoff in 4S without telling where you are weak so 4S as no control or just to signoff is natural.
If 3NT is serious its unlikely your going to have controls in all the side suits or at least if you have controls in all the side suits you going to be strong enough to bid 4NT rkc anyway.

[Zelandakh]

benlessard, on 2017-January-18, 12:29, said:

Show me what can be improved on the std way.

I have not yet claimed it was better although I do actually believe it is marginally so. The advantage comes in the ability to use denial cues as Asking Bids on some hands. Against that you are essentially not losing anything so the nett effect is slightly positive.

benlessard, on 2017-January-18, 12:29, said:

But slightly inferior.

In what way inferior?

benlessard, on 2017-January-18, 12:29, said:

Ignore the frivolous/serious 3Nt since it nearly symmetrical in the long run.

Ignoring this is what gets you in the mess regarding the 3NT - 4♠ auction.

benlessard, on 2017-January-18, 12:29, said:

However if you use 4C(deny but at least one control)

A direct 4♣ is serious so the chances of the hand having zero controls is negligible unless partner has shown a massive hand.

benlessard, on 2017-January-18, 12:29, said:

In short playing denial whats the best use of 3NT---4S

This is very simple and suggests to me you do not understand how this works. 3NT is frivolous, essentially a slam try. 4♠ simply declines the slam try. You only worry about side controls if there is enough strength for slam.

benlessard, on 2017-January-18, 12:29, said:

Anyway its irrelevant since the show method give you more bidding sequences than either denial method.

As far as I know there are an equal number of sequences between the methods. It might well be that you are comparing with an innefficient version of denial cues, which would explain some of your comments.

[benlessard]

Quote

"In what way inferior?"

If you look at the table on my google drive you see that case where you are missing a side control lead obviously to the same 4S however the lead directing information is different. However if you look at the case where all the side suit are covered they are covered earlier with the show method. This allow for a better turbo method.

if im in 4C/4D and i know we have all the controls it allow me to bid 4NT directly or to temporize (fake cuebid) with 4red and bid 4NT over the expected 4S. This add some bidding space. In short 4m-4NT got more value than 4H-4NT.

Quote

"Ignoring this is what gets you in the mess regarding the 3NT - 4♠ auction."

I play 3NT frivolous, so obviously for me 3NT-4S is to play, but on the long run there is no difference between...

3NT (ser)----4C
and 4C(ser) at this point you have extras knowned on one side and the club situation for one player its symmetrical.

The drawback is of course when you cuebid and both players have minimum hand you just leak more info.

Quote

A direct 4♣ is serious so the chances of the hand having zero controls is negligible unless partner has shown a massive hand.

so if 4C deny a club control but guarranted a red control its better to use 4D as asking for the location of the red control (or do you have both of them?) rather than 4D denying a D control.

This is easy to see

4C--4D (denyC--showC& deny D)
4C--4H (denyC--showC&D but denyH)
4C--4S (both players deny club cue)

vs

4C--4D (denyC, wich red cue do you have)
4C--4H (denyC, i need H and extra values, H cue only isnt enough)
4C--4S (both players deny club cue)

the 2nd method got a last train sequence that the 1st one is missing.

Quote

"As far as I know there are an equal number of sequences between the methods. It might well be that you are comparing with an innefficient version of denial cues"

Just look at the table on the googledrive carefully. Compared the sequences written last train (2vs2) 2way and 3way.

[benlessard]

Lets take for example the case where the 1st players got a C+D cue and the 2nd got D+H

using denial it will go 4H-4NT the 2nd player need to bypass 4S even when minimum.

using std it could go

4C-4D-4H-4S (C cue,D cue,i need a H ctrl and extras, i got the H control but im min)

1st players got a C cue and the 2nd got D+H

4D--4NT the 2nd player need to bypass 4S even when minimum.

in std

4C-4D-4H-4S (C cue,D cue,i need a H ctrl and extras, i got the H control but im min)

What this simply show is that the sequence

4C-4D is more useful when its i got a C cue & i got a D cue than its counter part in denial methods.

[Zelandakh]

Again Ben, I think you misunderstand the (small) advantage of DCBs. If I have a serious hand that will want to take control at some point, the DCBs can be turned into Asking Bids. I can sopecifically ask for a control in any suit and nonetheless continue over a sign off having gained additional information. Using positive cue bids it is only possible to do this in one suit (usually clubs when the agreed suit is spades).

Cherry-picking sequences also does you a disservice. Change the controls held by each player slightly and the positions are reversed. Again, what you are missing here is the serious/frivolous aspect. Serious means that we are willing to go to the 5 level if we hold all the controls. You are choosing to use the tiny amount of additional space to create an exception to that; I use that space differently. This is not a weakness of the method but a design decision.

If you really want to find out what is better then you need to take account of the whole structure, not only the auctions that favour your current preference. If on the other hand you are only interested in "proving" that is the better approach then good luck to you - the discussion would be pointless.

[benlessard]

"Change the controls held by each player slightly and the positions are reversed"

So so wrong, this simply meant you didnt look at the table. If you dont bother to simply look at it this discussion is pointless. I didnt cherry pick anything, ive done all the possible combo of cuebid possible except those where one side got all the cuebid where you can do almost anything (fake ask weither they are denial or not).

"Serious means that we are willing to go to the 5 level if we hold all the controls." Suit yourself & play 5, but on some of the same hand ill play 4. If you cant see that having some extras last train sequence at zero cost is an advantage there is not a lot else i can bring to this discussion.

If I have a serious hand that will want to take control at some point, the DCBs can be turned into Asking Bids."

This is only true when asker got control in all the suit and need to check if partner also got a club control without caring too much about controls in the other suits, thats imo cherry picking. It help when you enumerate sequence side by side so if you have one example where denial make a gain over std just show it.

[benlessard]

I made a mistake if ask want to know for a !C control he simply need to bid 4D.
If he want to know for a D control he bid 4C.
For a H he bid

4C
4C-4D-4H

So if you have control everywhere you can still make a fake ask and cover all the suits.

[fromageGB]

Zel - please explain a little more (using denial) on the post#10 example where a strong hand (slam-interested) hand bids first, with C+D controls, and a limited partner may or may not have H. After spades have been agreed in a GF situation with a 3♠ bid, the strong hand bids 4♥, and presumably partner bids :
4♠ = no heart control
4NT = heart control and I am ace asking
5♣+ = heart control and I am giving my ace reply as if you had asked
?

Or is this 4♥ a case of turning a DCB into an asking bid, and if it is an asking bid, what is the question?

[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2017-January-20, 06:06, said:

Zel - please explain a little more (using denial) on the post#10 example where a strong hand (slam-interested) hand bids first, with C+D controls, and a limited partner may or may not have H. After spades have been agreed in a GF situation with a 3♠ bid, the strong hand bids 4♥, and presumably partner bids :
4♠ = no heart control
4NT = heart control and I am ace asking
5♣+ = heart control and I am giving my ace reply as if you had asked
?

Or is this 4♥ a case of turning a DCB into an asking bid, and if it is an asking bid, what is the question?

I play it slightly differently in that the serious hand here is almost certainly the less known one and is deemed to be in control. Therefore the second hand gives a key card response with a heart control or bids 4♠ without one. There are 3 ways of using the 4NT call:-

1. As you describe, it could be used to reverse who is asking. This makes sense where both hands are unlimited but is usually dubious where the second hand is limited.
2. All of the key card responses could be bumped up one step.
3. 4NT can be used to show a heart control plus an additional piece of information, such as an undisclosed side void.

Interesting, but complicated, would be to vary the meaning depending on the preceding auction. In any case, #2 and #3 both allow for the Asking Bid concept with the question being whether a heart control is held, then zooming into key cards. This zooming idea is one that has been taken from relay systems and helps to improve the overall efficiency.

It is not a gain of DCBs though as the same approach can also be used with positive cues, if desired. To some extent it falls out from the system where for which I designed the method, which is built around the concept of a hand becoming limited, so the situation that arises in Standard of both hands having some extras but not enough to show serious interest does not arise. I prefer such a system solution to the alternative of combining S3NT with LTTC, which I personally think is much less efficient. If your system needs that crutch then using the extra space within control bidding for that purpose obviously makes more sense.