[inquiry]

Here is a simple, everyday kind of auction. I wonder how well players agree on this. Fee free to defend your answer (could have used fourth suit forcing..so it must be _____, or so on).

1♦ - 1♥
1♠ - 4NT

What does 4NT show/ask?

[pclayton]

The only 4 ace blackwood I use is after 1x - 4N. Might be sensible to play it as 4 ace in this sequence too, or even kc for hearts; just a function of agreement.

However, I'm leery about creating too many 'special' key card auctions.

[inquiry]

pclayton, on Nov 16 2004, 11:44 AM, said:

The only 4 ace blackwood I use is after 1x - 4N. Might be sensible to play it as 4 ace in this sequence too, or even kc for hearts; just a function of agreement.

However, I'm leery about creating too many 'special' key card auctions.

So how did you vote?

[joker_gib]

I can show fit via 4th suit or cue bid so for me this is a simple blackwood for aces

[pclayton]

inquiry, on Nov 16 2004, 07:51 AM, said:

pclayton, on Nov 16 2004, 11:44 AM, said:

The only 4 ace blackwood I use is after 1x - 4N. Might be sensible to play it as 4 ace in this sequence too, or even kc for hearts; just a function of agreement.

However, I'm leery about creating too many 'special' key card auctions.

So how did you vote?

I voted for KC of spades without a lot of conviction.

[joker_gib]

pclayton, on Nov 16 2004, 11:34 AM, said:

I voted for KC of spades without a lot of conviction.

Same for me as I don't really like those kind of straightforward actions !

[HeartA]

RKC for Spades.

[mr1303]

Doesn't exist
But if partner pulled that randomly on me I'd assume Key card for spades.

[inquiry]

mr1303, on Nov 16 2004, 02:13 PM, said:

Doesn't exist
But if partner pulled that randomly on me I'd assume Key card for spades.

Why doesn't it exist, I mean, you can define it as anything you want, anything. Surely it must serve some useful function. I think all bids should exist... and when you don't use them, you eliminate one type of hand (ro another).

[pclayton]

inquiry, on Nov 16 2004, 10:26 AM, said:

mr1303, on Nov 16 2004, 02:13 PM, said:

Doesn't exist 
But if partner pulled that randomly on me I'd assume Key card for spades.

Why doesn't it exist, I mean, you can define it as anything you want, anything. Surely it must serve some useful function. I think all bids should exist... and when you don't use them, you eliminate one type of hand (ro another).

Heh; I'm like you Ben, a systems nut.

I have a new approach, however. When we are making up a new sequence, frequently, we assign to a certain call: DOES NOT EXIST.

Aside from the intellectual exercise, we have decided that its better to assign 'no meaning' to a bid, than to assign a meaning and have something come up every 10 years ago that we rate to forget.

The subject sequence hardly qualifies however.

[Free]

RKC ♠, don't see any other reasonable meaning to this crazy bid

[EricK]

I have no doubt that this should be quantitative.

I can't imagine a hand which wats to ask for just Aces now but didn't on the first round

I can't see why I can't agree ♠ or ♦ or ♥ via a FSF auction

However, how else can I show the quantitative hand?

If I bid FSF and partner obliges with a NT bid then I can raise quantitatively. But if he bids a suit (♦, ♥, or ♠), especially with a jump, then my subsequent 4NT bid is surely RKB for that suit.

Eric

[EricK]

Jlall, on Nov 16 2004, 08:17 PM, said:

you can easily show a quantitative hand via FSF if you wanted to...

1D 1H
1S 2C
2x 2N
3x 4N

And if partner jumps to 3x?

Eric

[the hog]

KC for S. Simple rule, if pd bids 4N without having gone through 4sf, 4N is KC for the last bid suit.

[EricK]

Jlall, on Nov 16 2004, 10:01 PM, said:

then you can bid keycard because partner has a maximum and u had a quantitative 4N bid. Not even just a max, but significant extras

If you are playing FSF as GF, partner does not need significant extras to jump the bidding. So if you happen to be missing two Aces, you won't be able to sign off in 5NT.

Also, if the bidding were to start 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ 2♦, opener's 3♣ rebid wouldn't even be a jump.

Nobody has yet explained why we might need to Keycard for ♠ straight away, instead of agreeing the suit first.

Eric

[the hog]

Nobody has yet explained why we might need to Keycard for ♠ straight away, instead of agreeing the suit first.


While I agree with your comment Eric, is not KC the easiest auction on

Kxxx AKQJxx x Ax

[Flame]

I would make it 5 aces for spade, not because its best but because i have limited memory and cant remember different meaning for any sequence possible.