[JSSMP1]

Me and my partner just started learning control bidding, but I get confused in some cases. This is most easily illustrated with an example in which we established ♠ as trump:
- I start control bidding 4♦, showing ♦-control, denying ♣-control
- Partner bids 4♠
Now I, having ♥-control, don't know if we are safe to continue: Did partner bid 4♠ because he lacked ♣-control or because he lacked ♥-control? In the first case I should sign off, while in de second case I'm safe to bid on.

Hope someone can help clarify if I am doing something wrong or how to handle these cases.

[sfi]

When partner doesn't have a club control, their first job is to sign off by bidding 4S. If they have a club control and are interested in slam over 4D, they can show that interest by bidding 4H. Whatever 4H shows, it must include control in the suit you've denied - heart control is optional.

[akwoo]

There is no easy and good way to resolve this problem. You and your partner should agree how you want to play 4♥ in this situation - either it says nothing about hearts but indicates a club control, or it says nothing about clubs but indicates a heart control. If you play the first way, then 4♠ denies a club control but says nothing about hearts; if you play the second way, then 4♠ denies a heart control but says nothing about clubs. Each method has hands where partner is left in the dark.

Furthermore, some people play that 4♠ is bid, regardless of controls, on hands that are very unsuitable for slam. On some hands this is helpful too - and on other hands not so much.

(Also, some people don't play that 4♦ strictly denies a club control, just that they thought showing the diamond control was more important for some reason, or even just that their diamond control is better than their club control.)

So - you and your partner should agree on something - and if it's not working for you after a while, change. Yes this means you may have to remember different things for different partners, though if you're in a group that all play with each other you can coordinate.

[JSSMP1]

Thanks for the helpful responses! It seem logical to play 4♥ as showing a ♣ control, since that is the control partner knows I lack (I could also be lacking ♥ control, but that is not certain). He can also ask keycards with both controls, so maybe 4♥ can even deny the ♥-control.

That would leave the logic of:
- 4♥: ♣-control no ♥-control
- 4♠: neither of us has a ♣-control (sign off)
- 4NT: ♣-control and ♥-control

The disadvantage also noted in the responses above is that partner cannot show a hand that is bad for slam. I guess I'll read into the different methods a bit more as well

[pescetom]

 JSSMP1, on 2024-January-27, 05:10, said:

Thanks for the helpful responses! It seem logical to play 4♥ as showing a ♣ control, since that is the control partner knows I lack (I could also be lacking ♥ control, but that is not certain). He can also ask keycards with both controls, so maybe 4♥ can even deny the ♥-control.

In Italian mixed level control bidding it is indeed normal that after 4♦ denying clubs control one plays 4♥ to show clubs control.
This breaks the "bidding squeeze" (as Belladonna called it) that you identify in your OP.

 JSSMP1, on 2024-January-27, 05:10, said:

He can also ask keycards with both controls, so maybe 4♥ can even deny the ♥-control.

That would leave the logic of:
- 4♥: ♣-control no ♥-control
- 4♠: neither of us has a ♣-control (sign off)
- 4NT: ♣-control and ♥-control

It looks playable, but unnecessarily limited to me, especially when hearts are trumps instead of spades.
The Italian solution is that 4♥ (or more in general, the third side-suit) affirms clubs (the first side-suit that was skipped) and says nothing about hearts.
That way neither player is in doubt about how to proceed and you can continue any way you want (control-bidding, RKCB, Turbo) with any suit as trumps.

[jdiana]

Good question!

We play Italian style control bids but my notes say that 4♥ in that auction would show both a heart and club control. But thinking about it, that probably doesn't make much sense.

Can anyone recommend a good article (or maybe book chapter?) that provides a clear and complete description of Italian style control bidding?

[DavidKok]

A great question, and the best answer I have is in the negative. From Ken Rexford's "Cuebidding at Bridge", the introduction chapter:

Ken Rexford said:

When I set out to write this book, the motivation was not truly to reinvent the wheel, but perhaps that was, in a sense, the result. I researched multiple sources for clues as to what ‘Italian-Style Cuebidding’ means. (By ‘Italian’, I mean that approach to cuebidding that has its origins in the theory of the Italian Blue Teams of World Championship fame.) The works of Giorgio Belladonna, including Cuebidding to Slam, coauthored by Claudio Petroncini, published in 1990 and translated by Daniel Neill of Kentucky in 2004, served as a starting point, perhaps reflecting the ‘old school’ theories of the originators. For the ‘modern’ perspective, I reviewed a series of three articles by Fred Gitelman, “Improving 2/1 Game Force”, published originally in Canadian Master Point magazine.
Neither of these two texts showed me a functional wheel and the theories were at points inconsistent with each other. In short, it was a mess. Just look over Vugraph Archives to see for yourself. The professionals might all agree what to open, what to respond and what to rebid, but their cuebidding sequences diverge on to all sorts of strange paths.
I delved deeper, reading brief notes in bridge books, reviewing system notes for many of the great players and conducting online research. My online studies referenced numerous lesson notes, commentaries and the like. I even posed questions on bridge forums for the masses to respond to. Finally, I turned to professional friends of mine, discussing the issue between rounds over cigarettes. My major source here was my friend Kenneth Eichenbaum of Columbus, Ohio.
The result was a mismatched collection of majority views, minority views, insane views and sometimes no opinions or views at all. Next I used logic, and sometimes personal preference, to produce a perspective that seemed consistent with the rest of the theory.

I do not think such an overview exists. I've read a few other texts (I think one by Belladonna, and a more modern one by a different (I think) Italian player but their name escapes me, though if there is great interest I can try and find the document) but they did not clarify the situation much, in my opinion.

For what it is worth, I have not (yet) read Ken Rexford's full book, but I have read the first few chapters. It is a coherent and extremely effective approach to control bidding, but also very complicated. I am confident that I have never met a player who uses the approach described in the book, and I suspect there are no such players on the planet.

[pescetom]

Right now I am directing a team tournament with a pair of Italian national team women playing, I understand about half of their control-bidding.
You can make it as complicated as you like, but it also works well when kept simple.
Unfortunately there is no good book to describe even that.

[apollo1201]

When I started I learnt this way and it is simple and deals with most cases but the situation you describe is one of the weaknesses of this style (skip = deny, start at 1st level).

The solutions posted above have their merits to correct it but are not 100% clear:
- 4H I have both: fine but that might not happen all the time, then you cue 5C but knowing if 2 KC are missing will be difficult (or knowing if we should venture above 4S)
- 4H I have C: probably better (it is rare that the partner who started cueing has 2 wide open suits)

And more importantly, they still work simple.

A more complex style I learnt later is to start cueing at the level you want, promising all skipped levels. And interested in knowing if partner controls the next suit.

Imagine your suits are Qxx x AKx in a S contract, 4D by partner above your 4C will not help you, while if you start at 4D, you can more easily extract partner s (desprtately needed) H control.

But that style has some non intuitive implications (3NT to ask for C, when H are trumps, 3S to start cueing, not saying anything about S, and 3NT as S control, want to know about C) that makes it more advanced.

Yes, it overs virtually all cases, but is much more complex.

I had lived without for years, but I now appreciate it better.

[pescetom]

 apollo1201, on 2024-January-27, 12:35, said:

When I started I learnt this way and it is simple and deals with most cases but the situation you describe is one of the weaknesses of this style (skip = deny, start at 1st level).

Just to avoid confusion, my reply (and most others so far I think) do NOT assume we start at 1st level.
We start in the cheapest suit we have a 1st or 2nd level control.

 apollo1201, on 2024-January-27, 12:35, said:

A more complex style I learnt later is to start cueing at the level you want, promising all skipped levels. And interested in knowing if partner controls the next suit.

Imagine your suits are Qxx x AKx in a S contract, 4D by partner above your 4C will not help you, while if you start at 4D, you can more easily extract partner s (desprtately needed) H control.

But that style has some non intuitive implications (3NT to ask for C, when H are trumps, 3S to start cueing, not saying anything about S, and 3NT as S control, want to know about C) that makes it more advanced.

Yes, it overs virtually all cases, but is much more complex.

I had lived without for years, but I now appreciate it better.

3NT can be assigned to a multitude of uses without a contorted style of control-bidding.
My firm opinion is that one should never "lie" to partner about controls or otherwise mastermind the bidding, however opportune it may seem.
It undermines the vital long term basis of mutual trust and is almost never more productive than simply showing what you have.

[sfi]

 JSSMP1, on 2024-January-27, 05:10, said:

Thanks for the helpful responses! It seem logical to play 4♥ as showing a ♣ control, since that is the control partner knows I lack (I could also be lacking ♥ control, but that is not certain). He can also ask keycards with both controls, so maybe 4♥ can even deny the ♥-control.

That would leave the logic of:
- 4♥: ♣-control no ♥-control
- 4♠: neither of us has a ♣-control (sign off)
- 4NT: ♣-control and ♥-control

The disadvantage also noted in the responses above is that partner cannot show a hand that is bad for slam. I guess I'll read into the different methods a bit more as well

You probably don't want to give up the keycard asking meaning of 4NT so easily. When you show first and second round controls equally, RKC is a pretty important tool to check the defence isn't going to cash two tricks against you. Apart from that, you have the general idea.

You're also right that there can be a problem in getting to slam by sheer momentum, but with inadequate values. When I started off teaching a new player in a regular partnership, we just accepted that for a couple of years - we bid lots of slams that happened to make and all was well. At some point though, some semblance of science has to come in. There are a few basic ways to sort out values, and they clearly aren't mutually exclusive:

• Have more science earlier in the auction, so you have some idea of the slam chances by the time you get to three of your suit. That will come with time and I'm going to duck that issue entirely here.
  
• Introduce some sort of convention to say "I'm happy to cooperate with your slam try, but am not strong enough to go on my own". The most common conventions here are Serious 3NT and Non-serious 3NT, which both use a 3NT in a potential slam auction to either show a strong hand and demand cues or to ask partner to cue if they have reasonable extras and are looking for slam. The advantage is greater definition in these auctions, but there are two significant downsides to adding it. You give up the chance to play 3NT in a bunch of auctions and it's a fair bit of work to get to a point where you are using it effectively. I wouldn't recommend it as something for a novice & beginner partnership, but if you are interested you can find descriptions via a web search.
  
• Have an agreement that neither hand goes past 4 of the major without extras. With this agreement, you can start cuebidding and then sign off in 4M to show controls and some interest, but you don't get forced to the 5-level on minimum hands.

Of those three approaches, I would recommend looking at the last one first. It goes hand in hand with the 4H bid in your list above, which shows the club control and encourages partner to go on if they're still interested. And it is the most logical and easiest to introduce. Once this is working for you, then reassess to see whether you still need more tools to help sort out your values for slam. If not, your partnership is in a good place slam-wise. As the pair becomes more practiced, you will find holes and you can look to address them over time.

[JSSMP1]

This turned out to be a much more complicated and though-provoking question than I anticipated. Thanks all for your inputs, thoughts and useful references. I'm going to dive a bit more into control bidding to determine what we will play. As we are not super-experienced, I would like to limit the complexity.

[jdiana]

 JSSMP1, on 2024-January-28, 09:45, said:

This turned out to be a much more complicated and though-provoking question than I anticipated. Thanks all for your inputs, thoughts and useful references. I'm going to dive a bit more into control bidding to determine what we will play. As we are not super-experienced, I would like to limit the complexity.

Yes - These conversations can get complicated quickly! Sorry if I contributed to that.

You might take a look at Robert Todd's materials, e.g., https://www.advinbri...k-in-bridge/406 . Larry Cohen is always a good resource as well. (I've had some issues with malware popups on his website (which might just be me - I don't know) so I'm not providing a link.)

The fact that you identified the issue in your OP is a good sign that you're thinking about it the right way. Good luck!

[mw64ahw]

One approach you may like to consider is showing keycards rather than asking for them.
Playing Kickbo (A combination of Kickback & Turbo):

• The suit above the trump suit is used for showing an even number of keycards,
• Any other bid shows a (further) control/card and an odd number of keycards

In its simplest form this approach is combined with control bidding below 4 of the trump suit and helps build up a better picture of the cards in each suit. There are techniques to show a weak trump suit, voids, lack of a Q trumps & other defects, but I found that these came with experience rather than being set out in any comprehensive literature.

I think this is where I started slamBidding.key (bridgewebs.com) which references Ken Rexfords book

[sfi]

 JSSMP1, on 2024-January-28, 09:45, said:

This turned out to be a much more complicated and though-provoking question than I anticipated. Thanks all for your inputs, thoughts and useful references. I'm going to dive a bit more into control bidding to determine what we will play. As we are not super-experienced, I would like to limit the complexity.

Most topics in bridge have layers to the answer, and often the more complex answer won't make sense until you've worked through the other steps. No harm in that, and only adding complexity when you really feel you need it is a really good approach.

Each convention or artificial tweak is designed to address a specific problem. If you don't see what the problem is, or don't feel it's a problem for your partnership, it's generally not worth adding it. Sometimes you come back to it and sometimes you never adopt it. There's nothing wrong with making your own path through system development.

[pescetom]

 sfi, on 2024-February-01, 03:37, said:

Most topics in bridge have layers to the answer, and often the more complex answer won't make sense until you've worked through the other steps. No harm in that, and only adding complexity when you really feel you need it is a really good approach.

Each convention or artificial tweak is designed to address a specific problem. If you don't see what the problem is, or don't feel it's a problem for your partnership, it's generally not worth adding it. Sometimes you come back to it and sometimes you never adopt it. There's nothing wrong with making your own path through system development.

Another tip is to periodically review your system with partner and decide if any convention is not pulling its weight - I do this once a year. This is especially important if you are of the kind who actually enjoys playing new conventions (nothing wrong with that, so long as you are prepared to pay the price in terms of results).

[sfi]

 pescetom, on 2024-February-01, 03:58, said:

Another tip is to periodically review your system with partner and decide if any convention is not pulling its weight - I do this once a year. This is especially important if you are of the kind who actually enjoys playing new conventions (nothing wrong with that, so long as you are prepared to pay the price in terms of results).

Good thinking. Or you could take it further as a partnership back in my junior days did. Every time we had a 60+% game, partner was allowed to add a convention. Every time we had a game below 50%, I was allowed to remove one. Certainly not recommended, but we had a lot of fun with it.

[pescetom]

 sfi, on 2024-February-01, 06:56, said:

Good thinking. Or you could take it further as a partnership back in my junior days did. Every time we had a 60+% game, partner was allowed to add a convention. Every time we had a game below 50%, I was allowed to remove one. Certainly not recommended, but we had a lot of fun with it.

We are of the same spirit

But even more dour souls could benefit from an annual cleanup of all things dubious, even if popular.
This year the axe finally dropped on Gambling 3NT and it was a liberation.

[Gilithin]

There is a solution to this but it is advanced+ level and I would not recommend you start to play it. For future reference it is called Last Train to Clarkesville and generally used in combination with a similar convention called Serious/Frivolous 3NT. There is also an intermediate level solution (see below) that is much easier but unfortunately completely non-standard, meaning you can only play it with a regular partner with whom you have discussed it. Playing very simple methods, I would suggest you have partner bid 4♥ with a heart control but declining the slam try, 4NT with a heart control and accepting the slam try, or 4♠ without a heart control. With a heart control, you can now make an additional move beyond 4♠.

The easiest complete solution is to use 3NT (over 3♠) as a general slam try, meaning that a direct 4♣ shows strong slam interest. However, to avoid the LTTC complexity, the trick is to reverse the meaning of your control bids, meaning that you show the suits where you lack controls rather than hold them. In your example, with strong slam interest you would bid 4♣, denying a club control. With no club control, partner signs off in 4♠. With a club control, they either bid a suit where they lack a control, or continue beyond 4♠ when holding controls in all side suits. If you had had only a slam try, you would bid 3NT instead of 4♣. Over this, partner signs off in 4♠ to decline the try, bids a suit to accept the try but deny a specific control, or bids above 4♠ to accept the try and show controls in all suits. This does use an artificial 3NT though, which is always at risk of being passed, so you will probably want to get to a solid intermediate status before trying something like this out.

Finally, if you and your partner find control bidding difficult, I will mention that my current partner and I are using very basic natural slam tries for new suits and still manage to bid more good slams than any of our opponents. There are many more important aspects of bidding for you to be concentrating your time and efforts on at this stage, so my real advice is just agree something simple that you can both remember 100% and save your main efforts for other parts of the game.

[blackshoe]

sfi, on 2024-January-26, 19:20, said:

When partner doesn't have a club control, their first job is to sign off by bidding 4S. If they have a club control and are interested in slam over 4D, they can show that interest by bidding 4H. Whatever 4H shows, it must include control in the suit you've denied - heart control is optional.

This, basically, is a useful agreement called (by Meckwell who, iirc, invented it) Last Train, after "Last Train to Clarksville", by the Monkees.