[CSGibson]

Jlall, on Jun 5 2010, 03:10 PM, said:

CSGibson, on Jun 5 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

As for what the bids mean, and whether follow-ups after 3♦ are forcing, I'd say it depends on your agreements, and that there is no single standard way to play it, but I prefer the 4N quant, 4♦ forcing method, personally.

Im fine with saying there is no standard for what 4N means, or even that standard is that it's keycard, but I cannot imagine any reasonable definition of "standard" where 3S and 4D are not forcing bids.

true for 3♠, but I bet in a pick-up partnership it wouldn't come as a shock for them to pass 4♦

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

The OP is awesome, I'm assuming there was a disaster where someone bid 4♦, attempting to set trump so that 4N would be keycard after a cue-bid, and then the opener passed the 4♦ bid.

Wrong guess. Partner bid 4nt over 3d, I passed, as I had stretched a bit for 3d. I was practicing with a much weaker partner who I'm teaching, was pretty sure it was intended as RKC (and was right), but wanted to introduce the idea that not all 4nt bids are ace asking. I just wanted to confirm I wasn't teaching some idea that's totally nuts.

Interesting hand though, partner held something like AKQ AKQx xxx Qxx. This is awkward, because it seems impossible to be able to bid RKC unless 4d is RKC, partner going to bid 100% 5c/5d. So how to find out if partner have
xx xx AKQJxx AJx
or
Jx xx AQJTxx AKJ
??

Another question is if 1d-1h-2d, is 4nt RKC then? Or do you have to 3rd suit/agree D then 4nt?

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on Jun 5 2010, 04:33 PM, said:

Giving a Blackwood response to what's known to be a natural 4NT isn't particularly useful - if you're so short of aces that you're worried, you're unlikely to have an acceptance of the invitation anyway.

I wasn't thinking of "worry" as the reason for responding Aces. Was thinking about having an extra diamond, and responding KC for diamonds, in case partner can count 13 tricks with that information or after probing for another nice card.

If the partner of the 4NT (quant) bidder has not shown a suit of some length, on another auction, then things would be different.

However, the point about 5D being to play is interesting. A hand that fudged on strength because of an extra diamond and is afraid of notrump? If 5D is a decline of slam, the KeyCard thing would have to be adjusted.

[dburn]

Would have more sympathy with the notion that 4NT is natural if I could picture what it showed, or what opener was supposed to do about it with various hands.

Certainly would not respond keycards to a natural 4NT - whatever else 4NT does, it invites me to place the contract (since presumably 1♣-1♥-3♣-4NT is also natural, and I can't show keycards over that). But would not worry about reaching seven - there is no hand on which responder can be prepared for me to pass 4NT where we can make seven diamonds.

If you want to play 4NT as natural, you should as a minimum agree that it shows (or denies) a certain number of keycards for diamonds, otherwise opener will not have a clue what to do.

But for me, 4NT is keycard for diamonds (just as 1♥-1♠-3♥-4NT is keycard for hearts, and so on and so forth). Now, I agree that it is better to use other bids (such as 4♦ or 4♥) as keycard for diamonds, but if the OP had those available, the question would not have been asked. Still, if you want to play 4NT as natural there is an awful lot of discussion you need to have beforehand, and if you and I haven't had it, 4NT is Blackwood.

[gnasher]

dburn, on Jun 6 2010, 01:06 AM, said:

Would have more sympathy with the notion that 4NT is natural if I could picture what it showed, or what opener was supposed to do about it with various hands.

If you want to play 4NT as natural, you should as a minimum agree that it shows (or denies) a certain number of keycards for diamonds, otherwise opener will not have a clue what to do.

When we bid 1NT-4NT, that doesn't show or deny a specific number of controls. It asks opener whether he has a good hand in the context of the auction so far. One of the factors opener considers is the number of aces he has, but he pays more attention to his overall playing strength. Occasionally this leads to a slam missing two aces, but we accept that risk because it's outweighed by the the benefit of being able to consult opener.

Why is this sequence any different? Opener's bid has a wider range than a 1NT opening, and initiating a cue-bidding sequence will not usually tell responder where opener's hand lies within that range.

Quote

But for me, 4NT is keycard for diamonds (just as 1♥-1♠-3♥-4NT is keycard for hearts, and so on and so forth). Now, I agree that it is better to use other bids (such as 4♦ or 4♥) as keycard for diamonds

But in both sequences you can cue-bid and then bid 4NT. I know that the slower sequence may lead to some leakage of information, but it still seems wasteful to have two ways to show the same (fairly rare) hand.

[mike777]

I think both sides have made a great argument..


For me the main issue is that......all or almost all partnerships are "new" and have not discussed this.


If you guys have only played with one pard.....even 50% of the last 12 months ..ok....


I assume much much less.

Let me go out on a limb....


You are playing a wc event.....you have played little in total bridge the last 24 months.

[gszeszycki]

BALANCED OPPOSITE BALANCED quatitative bids make a fair amount of sense
because the contract being arrived at is based primarily on POWER alone.
When UNBALANCED hands (or a trump fit is discovered) such quatitative bidding is way less accurate due to the extra trick taking ability of trump suits in general or the extra length inherent in an unbalanced hand.

As an exercise will someone PLEASE concoct a hand where they feel 4n quantitative is the RIGHT BID after 1d 1h 3d. Saying something is THEORETICALLY correct is fine as long as one can properly IMAGINE how to properly use that theory to arrive at intelligent contracts. I can concoct a TON of hands where I would want 4n to be rkc for ex


x AKQJx xxx Axxx where i can play 5 6 or 7
x KQJxx Qxx AKxx where i can play 5 6 or 7

[aguahombre]

gszeszycki, on Jun 6 2010, 11:10 AM, said:

When UNBALANCED hands (or a trump fit is discovered) such quatitative bidding is way less accurate due to the extra trick taking ability of trump suits in general or the extra length inherent in an unbalanced hand.

As an exercise will someone PLEASE concoct a hand where they feel 4n quantitative is the RIGHT BID after 1d 1h 3d. Saying something is THEORETICALLY correct is fine as long as one can properly IMAGINE how to properly use that theory to arrive at intelligent contracts. I can concoct a TON of hands where I would want 4n to be rkc for ex


x AKQJx xxx Axxx  where i can play 5 6 or 7
x KQJxx Qxx AKxx  where i can play 5 6 or 7

Since most of these folks have another RKC bid for the minor, what you are really saying is that 4NT is not quantitative, but impossible ---unless it is some kind of combination of RKC and extra trump asking bid, and I don't know what the replies would be to that kind of question.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on Jun 6 2010, 06:24 PM, said:

Since most of these folks have another RKC bid for the minor, what you are really saying is that 4NT is not quantitative, but impossible ---unless it is some kind of combination of RKC and extra trump asking bid, and I don't know what the replies would be to that kind of question.

I don't have a RKCB bid which isn't 4NT, because I don't need one. Over 3♦, if I wanted to bid RKCB, I would bid 4♣, which is a cue-bid. Partner would then bid 4♦, 4♥ or 4♠, and I would bid 4NT RKCB.

[aguahombre]

Yep, I guess I should have said "another way of bidding RKC for the minor rather than a direct jump to 4NT", but the point is the same.

[gnasher]

gszeszycki, on Jun 6 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

As an exercise will someone PLEASE concoct a hand where they feel 4n quantitative is the RIGHT BID after 1d 1h 3d.

Here is an EXAMPLE of a HAND where I would BID 4NT

KJx AQxx xxx Kxx

That IS, A hand where WE'RE likely TO belong IN notrumps, I know that my HAND should BE declarer, and I don't kNOw wHeThEr wE HavE enough tricks for a slAM.

Quote

I can concoct a TON of hands where I would want 4n to be rkc for ex

x AKQJx xxx Axxx  where i can play 5 6 or 7
x KQJxx Qxx AKxx  where i can play 5 6 or 7

The auction isn't going to suddenly end if you bid 4♣. Nobody is suggesting that you shouldn't be able to bid Keycard on these hands, but only that it costs nothing to have to agree diamonds before doing so.

On your second hand, incidentally, I'm not sure how a keycard 4NT is going to let you play at the five-level, unless you're planning to play it in hearts.

[bluecalm]

4NT = natural invite.
There is a very simple and useful rule: If no suit is agreed jump to 4NT is natural slam invite. If you want RKC just set the trumps one way or the other.
If we showed 7+ card major 4NT is rkc in that suit because bypassing 4M is pointless. Simple logic again.
I guess we live in different bridge world but absolutely none of my bridge friends would take 4NT as rkc here. It just doesn't make sense without some special agreements and ton of discussion about what you do with natural balanced invite if you don't have natural 4NT available in various situations.
This is especially important in "standard" like systems where 3♦ has very wide strength range.

[gszeszycki]

1. bidding goes 1d 1h 3d what do you bid with say xxx AKxx Kxx xxx

tell me 4d isnt invitational and can be passed

2. the whole POINT of cue bidding is to express interest in slam AND convey the message that the cuebidder cannot use methods such as rkc due to the nature of their hand. Thus it is VERY important to have normal methods like RKC available for those instances where one hand DOES have the power to use it wisely.

3. I cannot imagine ANY hand where 4N is necessary to show slam interest because it is virtually impossible to have such a hand and NOT be able to cue bid to show slam interest.

4. Jumping to 4n to show some nebulous 14 count as an invite takes up a HUGE amount of space that could be put to better use cuebidding.

5. FINAL KEY POINT after beginning a cue bidding sequence one can then bid 4n to show a MINIMUM invite but in the interim just starting a cue bidding sequence might enable partner to intelligently continue. for EX:
1d 1h 3d 4c (cue bidding because cannot use rkc intelligently) 4s (opener is cue bididng because they cannot use rkc intelligently BUT the 4c cue bid alone might allow opener to jump to 4N RKC) 4N (no not suddenly rkc) but balanced quatitative slam try ----you might be no better off than if you had immediately JUMPED to 4N but you MIGHT and that is the whole point of not wasting valuable bidding space merely to mark time until you can THEN use RKC when it should have been available all along immediately

[gnasher]

Do YOU think THAT writing ALL your POSTS like THIS makes PEOPLE more OR less WILLING to READ them?

[campboy]

gszeszycki, on Jun 7 2010, 03:09 PM, said:

5. FINAL KEY POINT after beginning a cue bidding sequence one can then bid 4n to show a MINIMUM invite but in the interim just starting a cue bidding sequence might enable partner to intelligently continue. for EX:
1d 1h 3d 4c (cue bidding because cannot use rkc intelligently) 4s (opener is cue bididng because they cannot use rkc intelligently BUT the 4c cue bid alone might allow opener to jump to 4N RKC) 4N (no not suddenly rkc) but balanced quatitative slam try ----you might be no better off than if you had immediately JUMPED to 4N but you MIGHT and that is the whole point of not wasting valuable bidding space merely to mark time until you can THEN use RKC when it should have been available all along immediately

Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems wrong to me. Why can't you have a hand which isn't suitable for keycard immediately, but is once partner shows a spade control?

@gnasher: I just assumed he used to write DIALOGUE for Marvel COMICS

[bluecalm]

Quote

the whole POINT of cue biddin

Quote

NOT be able to cue bid to show slam interest.

Quote

put to better use cuebidding.

To use cuebids you need to have agreed suit. Jump to 4NT is useful as natural slam try in NT, not in diamonds. This is especially useful at MP's (beacause there aren't that many hands which can't set up diamonds and want to invite slam at IMPs, not to say there aren't any).

Quote

d 1h 3d 4c (cue bidding because cannot use rkc intelligently) 4s (opener is cue bididng because they cannot use rkc intelligently BUT the 4c cue bid alone might allow opener to jump to 4N RKC) 4N (no not suddenly rkc) but balanced quatitative slam try

No insult but it seems like you need some basic education in standard bidding theory.
If you use 4NT after cuebids it should be always RKC unless you have some special agreements.
Also how the hell is opener supposed to "use rkc" intelligently as he knows almost nothing at all about responder's hand after 4♣ cuebid, he just bids 4♠ in your example to deny ♥ control and to show ♠ control.

[Free]

gnasher, on Jun 7 2010, 05:07 PM, said:

Do YOU think THAT writing ALL your POSTS like THIS makes PEOPLE more OR less WILLING to READ them?

I agree, underlining is waaaaaaaaaaaay better!

[pooltuna]

Free, on Jun 8 2010, 03:06 AM, said:

gnasher, on Jun 7 2010, 05:07 PM, said:

Do YOU think THAT writing ALL your POSTS like THIS makes PEOPLE more OR less WILLING to READ them?

I agree, underlining is waaaaaaaaaaaay better!

almost as good as using color

[gszeszycki]

In my ex sequence resoponder would never be in position to use rkc because they would have no clue if the spade control shown was shortness or power (opener is known to be unbalanced). The whole point I was trying to make was that unbalanced hands (even one opposite balanced) can enjoy remarkably accurate and safe slam bidding as long as they do not waste bidding space jumping around and telling p little or nothing. In my example opener shows slam interest if responder can control hearts but they may never have ventured to search for slam if bidding went 1d 1h 3d 4n because such a search for slam might no longer be safe:)

My apologies for my points of emphasis being said in caps. Many of my sentences are runons and i find caps bring important points together better than creating new sentences. Apparently they can elicit some sarcasm because they distract some from arguing the logic and commenting on how the text was presented.

[mike777]

Jlall, on Jun 4 2010, 02:18 PM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Jun 4 2010, 01:11 PM, said:

Also, non-game bids after 3♦ are forcing, right?  Only way to stop in partial is pass?

Yes everything (including 3S) is forcing, and 4N is quant. However if you have not discussed this auction be aware that 99 % of people at least would take it as keycard. If you're ever playing with jdonn though, he'll know whats up!

y...well said...for so young person