[jillybean]

From another thread...

mikeh, on 2021-June-05, 17:45, said:

Also, note that you are creating a roadmap for the defenders.

In another thread discussing cue bidding to probe for slam, Mike made this comment regarding leaking too much information which could benefit your opponents.
This isn't something I have really considered and probably isn't a major concern at the club but obviously is at higher levels.

On one hand, I'm trying to cue bid and keep partner involved in the decision before Ace asking or blasting to slam, on the other hand, we are reminded not to leak information to the opponents. How do you balance the two?

[Cyberyeti]

Much more important at pairs where the difference between 5+2 and 5= matters more.

Rixi Markus used to call it "picking daisies along the way".

The things to avoid - cues that can be doubled for a lead, and at pairs cues that pinpoint the right lead.

[sfi]

One useful question to ask yourself during an auction is "if I had to guess right now, where would I place the contract?" Once you have that answer, you can then ask two related questions:

• Can I get information from partner to better place the contract?
  
• Can I give partner useful information to allow them to do so?

Cuebidding, Blackwood and other conventions are simply tools you use to help answer one of these two questions - they're not there just to describe your hand to everyone. If the answer to both questions is no, or if the information you exchange is likely to be more helpful to the opponents, you are probably better off simply placing the contract.

Cyberyeti's latest topic is a good example of this. If your aim is to get to the "right" contract, then some asking bid at the 5-level should be used. If your aim is to get a top board as often as possible, leaping to slam is not a bad shot. This consideration is one of the major differences at matchpoints vs. IMPs, although it has its place in both forms of scoring.

[DavidKok]

A while back I said that my partner and I decided to focus on learning how to show our hands first, and when we have that down we will focus on the secondary task of not giving away unnecessary information. A few years in and we're still on the first phase. Of course sometimes a hand just screams 'camouflage' and you have to take the reigns, but for every hand like that I get ten where people just want to jump and bury their partner ('I thought slam would have chances'). That being said, I play IMPS almost exclusively.

[paulg]

jillybean, on 2021-June-06, 02:15, said:

On one hand, I'm trying to cue bid and keep partner involved in the decision before Ace asking or blasting to slam, on the other hand, we are reminded not to leak information to the opponents. How do you balance the two?

With the juniors I help coach (who are probably intermediate) I don't worry about it too much. Getting to the right contract eventually is worth more than the random good result from a more direct method, and they learn more from this.

What I do point out is gratuitous (cue) bids followed by ace asking when partner does not co-operate.

I focus more on information leakage during the play. It may seem fun to win the trick with lowest of equals but it can be like putting your hand on the table. One reason that experts are more effective declarers is that they hide so many of their cards from the defence.

[LBengtsson]

constructive bidding always wins against guesswork. in the long game. sometimes - this is obvious - the opponents can benefit from your bidding, but you should not be scared to use your methods as discussed with your partner. what a partnership need is a structured way of how they bid with different auctions and different hand shapes.

look at meckwell relay precision. one of the worlds greatest bridge partnerships use many asking and relay bids to define hand shape and controls. if that means you end in good contract opposed to bad one, then that is where you need to be. even if the opponents have a picture of both hands shape/point count.

[jillybean]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-June-06, 02:24, said:

Much more important at pairs where the difference between 5+2 and 5= matters more.

Yes, I agree and this is why I much preferred IMPS to MP's for a long time.
My comment re "not a major concern at the club" was in regards to the opponents not taking full advantage of the information vs, playing at higher levels.

[mikeh]

LBengtsson, on 2021-June-06, 12:49, said:

constructive bidding always wins against guesswork. in the long game. sometimes - this is obvious - the opponents can benefit from your bidding, but you should not be scared to use your methods as discussed with your partner. what a partnership need is a structured way of how they bid with different auctions and different hand shapes.

look at meckwell relay precision. one of the worlds greatest bridge partnerships use many asking and relay bids to define hand shape and controls. if that means you end in good contract opposed to bad one, then that is where you need to be. even if the opponents have a picture of both hands shape/point count.

I played relay for a number of years, doing fairly well by our modest standards.

Our methods were designed, in part, to maximize the times that relayer declared.

We had many auctions, especially to slams, where the opponents knew dummy’s shape, number of controls, which queens he had, and (for 3suits) whether he has either one of the AK or either both AK or neither (relayer knew which...0 or 2), but all they knew about declarer’s hand is that he placed the contract opposite what partner showed.

We played in the context of 2/1, so significantly different from Meckwell, but they tend to reverse their suit showing by responder in their 1C auctions, partly for economy but also, I’m sure, to maximize the chances of the big club hand, doing the relays, becoming declarer.

In this way, when it works, there is far less information leakage to the defenders than in natural, descriptive methods

[nullve]

LBengtsson, on 2021-June-06, 12:49, said:

meckwell relay precision

Their system looks more like Jannersten Precision to me, but with many transfers and (other) applications of Rubens's Useful-Space Principle.

[Winstonm]

jillybean, on 2021-June-06, 02:15, said:

From another thread...

In another thread discussing cue bidding to probe for slam, Mike made this comment regarding leaking too much information which could benefit your opponents.
This isn't something I have really considered and probably isn't a major concern at the club but obviously is at higher levels.

On one hand, I'm trying to cue bid and keep partner involved in the decision before Ace asking or blasting to slam, on the other hand, we are reminded not to leak information to the opponents. How do you balance the two?

As soon as you know the best spot, place the contract.