[pclayton]

Here's an auction conducted by Baze / Cohler in the USBF. They are both excellent players (to put it lightly), but as far as I know they are not a seasoned partnership. I won't post the hands, but here's their auction (2/1 100% GF) up to the point of 4N:

1♥ - 2♦
3♣ - 3♦
3♠ - 3N
4♦ - 4N

I have no idea if 3♣ promised extra values or not, but certainly the opener is showing a good hand here by pulling 3N.

The question is the 4N call. Is it Key Card from a hand that has improved after limiting itself with 3N? Or is it a retreat to NT, with perhaps a weakish diamond suit but a double spade stop?

Side questions:

1. What would a direct 4♦ show / deny versus the 3♠..3N...4♦ sequence?

2. What would 4♠ over 4♦ be by responder?

[pbleighton]

I find the auction confusing. Opener probably shows 3514 with his first 3 bids. OK, then I guess with 4D it's now 2524 with two good doubletons. Is this a minimum hand, pushing pd to bid 3NT by showing a spade stopper? In which case why bid 4D. Are clubs a fragment?

I'm going to make the assumption that partner has not made a mistake. He kept the auction going for a long time, some sort of twisted slow arrival. 4D sets trump, and shows slam interest. Therefore 4N must be key card, notrump being ruled out as the strain.

4D instead of 3S is a strong bid. Many will play it as RKC, but maybe this pair hadn't agreed on it, and the 4D bidder was unwilling to risk it.

I would read 4S over 4D as a cue.

I'm really guessing here.

Peter

[jtfanclub]

If it were 2/1 mostly GF (so 2♦ followed by 3♦ could be passed), I would have guessed opener had 3=5=0=5 distribution and thought that the 7-0 split would actually work better in diamonds (since it's likely impossible to set up the diamonds in NT).

But in 2/1 truly GF that shouldn't be it, because surely the person who responded 2♦ has the entries to make the diamonds good even across a void, right?

I don't know any more.

[jdonn]

Even though I hate them and don't play them, there is nothing 3♠ can be on this auction but an advance cuebid that I can imagine, so 4NT keycard.

By the way, I'm fairly sure they are very seasoned, a lot more than you make it sound like. But my memory is fuzzy so I can't guarantee it. Pretty sure though.

[Halo]

Keycard

(For me) [Edit] Opener has shown a strong hand, not necessarily 4 cards in clubs.

I would assume 4D instead of 3S was still good, but this time real clubs, less in diamonds.

[inquiry]

Responder tried to signoff after 3!S so he is not allowed to pull out keycard here. His 4NT is to play. If he wants to cooperate, he has to bid something else. Responder needs a way to say.. .2!D was dirt-bag minimum, and if you want to go on, it is at your own risk.

[FrancesHinden]

This is all about partnership agreement. I've discussed auctions like this with my regular 2/1 partner, and I know what it means, but i can't tell you how Baze/Cohler would play it...

We have a nice simple rule that a non-jump to 4NT can never be RKCB in a minor (and a jump can only be RKCB if the suit has been explicitly agreed, never by inference).

There are different possible meanings for the 3S bid - I still play 4SF even if FG auctions, as an 'I don't know what to bid' bid, while other 2/1 practioners say it doesn't exist, and 3S is natural.

So in my one regular 2/1 partnership, this auction means:

1H = 5+ hearts, opening bid, could be 15-17 balanced
2D = natural, totally FG
3C = at least 5 clubs
3D = good diamonds, not 3-card heart support
3S = 4SF, I don't know where we are going (initially sounds like poor hearts, not a solid spade stop, hoping partner will bid 3NT)
3NT = OK, I've got spades well stopped and if you are minimum we aren't going anywhere.
4D = actually I have a pretty good hand in context are you interested?
4NT = no, I can't cue hearts, I can't cue spades and I can't make a trump cue

What's the difference between 3S...4D and an immediate 4D? An immediate 4D is more serious about diamonds; 3S then 4D sounds like more general values. Perhaps an immediate 4D on x AQxxx Kx KQxxx (or even - AQxxx Kxx Axxxx but that would probably bid 4S), but 3S-then-4D on more high cards, still patterning out (say Q AKJxx xx AKJxx). But this is in the context that 3C promised a 5th club, which is purely our personal agreement.

4S over 4D by responder is a cue bid.

[FrancesHinden]

inquiry, on Jun 6 2007, 06:37 PM, said:

Responder tried to signoff after 3!S so he is not allowed to pull out keycard here. His 4NT is to play. If he wants to cooperate, he has to bid something else. Responder needs a way to say.. .2!D was dirt-bag minimum, and if you want to go on, it is at your own risk.

My way for responder to say 2D was dirt-bag minimum and has a spade stop would have been to bid 3NT over 3C.

[FrancesHinden]

If 3C didn't promise 5 clubs, but 3S was still 4SF (the way I prefer to play), then 3S-then-4D is likely to be 2524 while an immediate 4D is 3-card support.

[Apollo81]

4NT should be RKC in this auction. With a bad hand, responder can bid 5♦ instead. There's no other way to ask for keycards.

[keylime]

This sounds like a Mexican standoff to me. I think it's to play...

[Robert]

Hi everyone

That 3C bid causes confusion in many 2/1 auctions. Since the system was listed as 2/1 100% GF, someone must decide 'if' 3C just shows shape or shows extra values. I am strongly in the 'extra value' camp.

3Ds should show a decent suit since no 3S(4th suit forcing). After 3S-3NT should permit partner to pass.

4D is a strong bid in my auctions. I play Kickback so 4H* would be RKC and 4NT would be a heart cuebid.

Without prior agreement the 4NT bid would be RKC(if you do not play Kickback)
Only after prior agreement would 4NT be signoff. I do not understand rebidding the diamonds(3D) and after partner goes out of his way to pull 3NT to 4D suddenly I decide to bid 4NT 'to play.'

"Trust Partner" is my standard agreement(except perhaps playing with a novice)
If you cannot trust partner, this partnership should not last very long.

Regards,
Robert

[whereagles]

Opener moved the world to establish a force. I would be very weary to try 4NT as stop here.

[Free]

RKC imo

[fred]

On the hand in question my partner and I bid:

1H-2D
2N-3N
4N-6D
P

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Echognome]

In my view, it's an offer to play. 3N was an offer to play and, yes, opener is now suggesting a diamond slam. But he isn't sure how good trumps are. Why would responder now be taking control? I believe if he wants to cooperate towards slam, he should bid something other than 4NT.

Of course, this is all by agreement. Some people will play that 4NT is *always* keycard. I just think it's sensible to be able to say "I know you're making another try, but my hand really isn't suitable." You can argue that 5♦ says that, but why can't you want to play in NT instead? You obviously have 3 cuebids available to cooperate, why do you have to be able to take control?

[cherdano]

Echognome, on Jun 6 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

In my view, it's an offer to play. 3N was an offer to play and, yes, opener is now suggesting a diamond slam. But he isn't sure how good trumps are. Why would responder now be taking control? I believe if he wants to cooperate towards slam, he should bid something other than 4NT.

Of course, this is all by agreement. Some people will play that 4NT is *always* keycard. I just think it's sensible to be able to say "I know you're making another try, but my hand really isn't suitable." You can argue that 5♦ says that, but why can't you want to play in NT instead? You obviously have 3 cuebids available to cooperate, why do you have to be able to take control?

Usually I agree with this, the sequence 3N - 4m - 4N is regressive. But here the 4N bidder can hardly have a hand for this, he bid 3N only when begged to do so, and his partner clarified he was making a slam try, not begging for a NT contract.

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Jun 6 2007, 07:05 PM, said:

Echognome, on Jun 6 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

In my view, it's an offer to play.  3N was an offer to play and, yes, opener is now suggesting a diamond slam.  But he isn't sure how good trumps are.  Why would responder now be taking control?  I believe if he wants to cooperate towards slam, he should bid something other than 4NT.

Of course, this is all by agreement.  Some people will play that 4NT is *always* keycard.  I just think it's sensible to be able to say "I know you're making another try, but my hand really isn't suitable."  You can argue that 5♦ says that, but why can't you want to play in NT instead?  You obviously have 3 cuebids available to cooperate, why do you have to be able to take control?

Usually I agree with this, the sequence 3N - 4m - 4N is regressive. But here the 4N bidder can hardly have a hand for this, he bid 3N only when begged to do so, and his partner clarified he was making a slam try, not begging for a NT contract.

I agree with you and would go even further. His rebid suit got supported! The auctions where 4m 4NT are natural are consistently either 4m is a new suit, or opener rebidding a suit, never as support of a rebid suit.

[mike777]

Baze and Cohler? Who puts these pairs together if they are not a longterm partnership?

[bhall]

The closeness of the vote tells me one thing: 4N should not have been bid in this auction without a specific agreement about its meaning. Responder should either have cued to advance or bid 5 or 6♦ to sign off.