[MrAce]

There is a lot to be said about showing Qx QJx as a value in pd's known long suit even in control cuebidding auctions. This may be whether the major suit pd opened, or showed 5+ in 2/1 context. However if 2/1 response promised only 4 card it may not be optimal.
What are your thoughts on this? (Please keep in mind I am interested in control cuebids that does not lose 2 quick tricks in the cue suit, not strict aces)
Thanks!

[jogs]

Control bidding is for possible slam auctions. When pard had AKxxxx, Qx is better than xxx. Don't think one has an opportunity to show Qx very often. But one can keep this in mind when deciding whether or not to cue some other control.

[broze]

My p and I have the agreement not to cue shortness in partner's known-to-be 5 card suit when we are in a game force but to count the Queen as a cue bid as you sau. The 2/1 2D/2H are always 5 cards so there is no problem here; the 2C 2/1 bis could be short at first but is clarified later - when it becomes the real suit we can cue bid the queen.

[kenrexford]

Yes. Cue queens in partner's long suit. 4-card is a long suit.

[mikeh]

I've seen this suggestion before but I don't understand how one can use it and land on one's feet.

Say my first suit (or a useful second) is AJxxx or, even worse, Axxxx. We are clearly playing another suit and we are cuebidding....you cue my suit at the first convenient call. How do I distinguish between Kx....potentially huge....or Qx....the distinction may well make or break whatever slam we reach and may influence grand/small choices.

The way I like to look at the majority of cue-bidding auctions is that absent overwhelming power, and even sometimes then, cuebidding involves some judgement...especially below game. An auction in which both are cuebidding below game is, usually, co-operative and to a large degree dependent on how one thinks about one's hand.

Thus if on a given hand I have a spare Q, let's say.....if that is Qx in your suit....I upgrade and express enthusiasm...if it is a Qx in a unbid suit, I don't like my hand that much and while I may cooperate below game, I won't be the one pushing beyond game.

I think using this approach to hand valuation, and thus cooperating or not is more useful than specifically cuebidding Qx in a situation in which partner cannot possibly tell(unless he is looking at AK) what is going on. If he is looking at AK and the Q is key to the hand, then we'll have an auction in which, eventually, he will offer a signoff and (if all else looks good) I'll keep going.

I suspect I have more experience cuebidding to slams than most, not only because I have played a lot of bridge but also because I enjoy these types of sequences. I inflict them often enough on regular partners that they develop, if they don't already have...and my regular ones already have...the type of judgement that (usually) works.

If one is a keycard addict, that cuebids invariably precede a keycard ask, then my approach won't make much sense to that player.

[NickRW]

If one cues first and second rounds controls interchangeably and one also cues cheapest suit first, then missing out a suit but cueing it at a later opportunity by definition must show 3rd round control. (But not all auctions are as clean as that - for example, cueing partner's suit at the first opportunity might be seen as preference or something else other than a cue).

[kenrexford]

I land on my feet consistently by doing this. This is definitional, though. Obviously, K is better than Q. But, not cue bidding says no Q even, and helps avoid slams. It also allows the next cue to be shortness.

If you have two cues, two paths emerge:

Cue then no cue is Q
Cue then cue is King or Ace
No cue twice is ugly
No cue then cue is shortness

The style to not cuebid Queen first round makes he second is less defined or more rare. A repeat cue is rare, while a no cue then cue is apparently Q or short?

[kenrexford]

Take a few holdings for partner. If he has the Queen, he knows what you have and the issue is resolved. Your concern that he might not know will be false.

If he has Ace and King, he gains from an immediate cue of the Queen, obviously. AKJx, AK10x, and even AKxx look better, and each would prefer a Queen to a later Queen-or-short.

What about AJxx? Immediate Queen is nice. Not as nice as immediate King, but immediate air is also powerful for avoiding slam. Delayed method with second round as Queen-or-short is worse than delayed as short.

Axxx? My method requires two bids, but then a full picture emerges. Not cue bidding queens leaves the second round ugly Queen-or-short.

KJxx? My method works much better in two rounds. RKCB clarifies, as well.

Also, serious allows some nuances of suggestions for whether the control was queen or higher.

Consider, also, that a side Queen is difficult to show with RKCB. Sure, 6KCB or KKCB might help. But, cuebidding is about values. The Queen holding is very difficult to show unless it is bid, as later catch-up rarely works to show this.

[gszes]

Queens a real pain but can definitely be useful while shortness in
partners long suit is rarely useful and normally somewhat easily inferred
through the bidding. If p is interested in a grand slam try (think 6 level)
having the K or Q is normally sufficient to accept since p is not making
a grand slam try missing both honors in a side suit. The main problem occurs
when deciding to go for a small slam.

Having a stiff K in partners side suit is just plain vastly superior to having a
stiff Q or Q(xx). Many times p needs to know just how useful their Axxxxx suit is
and cuebidding may be the only way to find out. There are certain hands where hearing
about a queen is great (holding the AK) but even then those hands are far more likely
to have other concerns or will benefit from grand slam searches mentioned above.

The overall concept is not horrible but I feel it tries to hit a small target at the
expense not even aiming at a better target. Q(xx) gets mentioned quite often in the
form of a raise further negating a reason for cuebidding these holdings. The discussion
could probably use some examples to see if other solutions exist rather than adopting a
solution to a problem that does not really exist. Looking for problem hands might also
yield a clue as to the rarity of the problem coming up in case rescripting bidding might
reveal itself to be a poor idea:) I think Mikeh approach sounds good why can't we recruit
this guy to play vs JEC?))))))

[jogs]

mikeh, on 2014-October-02, 19:08, said:

I've seen this suggestion before but I don't understand how one can use it and land on one's feet.

It requires a real complex bidding style. Every slam auction is 10 to 15 bids long.
I used to kibitz Garozzo and DuPont on OKBridge. They would take 13 calls to reach 6♠=. Looked the recap. Tied for top. At one table the auction was 6♠ all pass.

[Fluffy]

I have only cuebid once a queen, it was the queen of spades in partner's suit, I did so because I had a super hand but with no other control bid below 4NT. Partner looking at ♠AK decided it must be an attempt to play 4♠ and passed it. I made an excellent card play to make 4♠ in the 5-1 fit, still it was worth no match point.

[snillrik13]

Krzysztof Martens, coach of the Monaco team, has an interesting proposal. After trump agreement - show short suit. He regards this better than cuebidding aces first. Then he has a further twist: a raise of the singleton cue is a maximal hand in view of earlier bidding.Martens has written many good books but why not start with Camouflage, Waiting Bid.

[jogs]

Pretty sure singletons(and voids) are much more valuable in the hand with the short trumps than in the hand with the long trumps.