[akwoo]

Scoring is matchpoints (very important for this question). White vs. red.

You hold

♠ KQ
♥ KJx
♦ QT9xx
♣ Qxx

You deal and open 1♦. The bidding subsequently goes:

1♦ - (2♠) - X - P
3♦ - P - 4N - P

4N is Roman Key Card in diamonds. You trust partner will be understanding. Pass? What's the chance that partner is missing just 1 and looking for the grand? That 5♦ makes and 4N does not?

[Endymion77]

> What's the chance that partner is missing just 1 and looking for the grand?

Small but existing

> That 5♦ makes and 4N does not?

Substantial, if partner has a singleton in spades and we're off 2 aces. Do you think they would make a vulnerable 2♠ overcall with a J high suit, or partner would bid rkcb with 2 or 3 small spades? That's unlikely, so partner probably has a singleton. Yes, we didn't hear from RHO but they're vulnerable and it's possible LHO overcalled 2S on AJ 7-th and RHO didn't want to raise with 3 small spades and a balanced hand.

Also, I don't pass forcing bids.

[mr1303]

My partner would be very annoyed if I passed RKCB. He might start punting things if he can't trust me to bid properly.

[P_Marlowe]

I am not going to pass, and I would not even consider it.
Partner did ask a question, and I will answer, do I know anything about partners hand.

But we can discuss the 3D bid, which may have painted a different picture than the what
I actually hold. I would have bid 2NT instead of 3D, showing a spade stopper, suggesting
a bal. hand / most likely denying a 6th diamonds.
For that matter: If you are willing to play 4NT with only one sure stopper, why did you
not want to suggest to play 2NT / 3NT?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Fluffy]

I've passed blackwood with good and bad results in the past. I also induced partner succesfully to bid blackwood once after a missunderstanding to pass it. But this hand doesn't resemble anything close to a hand where I´d like to pass.

To the OP: Why didn't you bid 2NT the round before?

[billw55]

Even if I knew passing would give me a matchpoint top, I still would not do it. The loss of partnership trust will cost much more.

Separately, agree about 2NT after the double. Rebidding five cards to the queen is not my cup of tea.

[ahydra]

No way do I pass 4NT. Absolutely no way. Is it not possible partner has a 22-count?

Spoiler

There was one situation that came up this year at Brighton where I wonder if partner might have passed RKC:

Playing weak NT,

1S-2NT (GF raise in spades)
3NT (15-19 BAL)-4S
I was naughty, fell in love with my 18-count too much and continued with 4NT. Of course, we got to 6S and went one off (not even close to making), bye bye 13 IMPs. Afterwards partner correctly said that if he signs off in 4S it means he has no slam interest even opposite a 19 BAL, and that he was tempted to lie about his number of aces knowing that slam couldn't be on. I suggested instead he could pass 4NT

ahydra

[MrAce]

If you did not find a passer even in BBF, you are probably asking a very odd question.

[ArtK78]

Before I answered the question, I checked in which forum the question was posted.

Simple partnership rule. NEVER pass a forcing bid.

Simple rule of life: NEVER say "NEVER."

In this case, the partnership rule overrules the life rule. Partner asked a question, I am required by basic partnership rules to answer that question. I do not know what kind of hand partner has for his bidding, but he does. If he is out of his mind, then he is out of his mind. I am not going to insult him by passing. I have plenty of time after the bidding is over to insult him.

There are a few very rare situations in which it makes SOME sense to pass a forcing bid. Those situations usually involve my having overbid my hand signficantly in the previous round hoping for an out which did not come. This is not one of those situations. Partner's hand is unlimited (save that the negative double could have been passed). So he may have a hand which is consistent with his bidding. He expects a reply to his question, and I am going to give him a reply.

[neilkaz]

Uwe's post above is spot on. I can't say it any better than he did.

[cherdano]

If you are tempted to pass because partner is expecting a different hand, maybe we have given a bad description of our hand earlier?

[akwoo]

For those of you who didn't like the 3♦ bid...

what if the bidding had gone

1♦ - (2♠) - X - (3♠)
P - P - 4N - P

instead?

(of course at this point one should question whether 4N is blackwood, but assume it is - a partnership agreement that you double 3♠ first to show a quantitative slam invitation would surely be a reasonable option)

The reason to pass is of course that 4N scores better at matchpoints than 5♦, and slam seems unlikely given I have no keycards.

(BTW, in real life, my partner held this hand, not me, and I didn't double 2♠; I just jumped to 4N. Passing 4N would indeed have gotten us half a board as both 4N and 5♦ make.)

As for partnership harmony, I would much rather have a partner who considers passing this (whether they do or not) than a partner who doesn't. The former shows imagination and an understanding of the quirks of matchpoints scoring. The latter just shows slavish following of rules.

[Zelandakh]

What are you using your 3♠ response for that it cannot include a slam try with diamond support? If Responder was interested in NT, they could presumably have bid 3♠ over 3♦. Partner has a description of our hand and we know almost nothing about theirs - why would we want to overrule them? As has already been written, passing 4NT is tantamount to admitting either that we misbid earlier, or that we do not trust partner to be able to bid sensibly. It is quite possible that LHO has ♠AJT and out with RHO holding nothing at all. With me as your LHO it is not impossible that ♠JT9 and out is held instead.

[RSClyde]

I passed RKC once. I had opened 1H and partner and I contacted a spade fit and he key carded: I had a 14 count with 0 keys, not even the Q. He was a good sport about it. I agree with the OP's reverence for at least thinking about taking a position, however I think that the preceding description of the hand was terrible.

[Siegmund]

There are worse things than being passed in 4NT.

This past weekend, I was passed in the queen-ask. The 4-1 diamond fit did not play nearly as well as the 7-2 heart fit was going to. Cost me 27 imps (5D-300 instead of 6H+1430, with 680 at the other table, in a Swiss.)

[mikestar13]

I have passed a Blackwood bid (simple or RKC) exactly once in my bridge career: the sequence was 1NT by me, 4NT by partner. Of course, I didn't know he intended 4NT as Blackwood. This is of course an inferior treatment, but my partner (a pickup) was a believer in "Any 4NT bid asks for aces", but neglected to tell me until after the hand. Ironically, this was above average result as 11 tricks were the limit even though we had all 4 aces-- we only had 31 HCP combined and both hands were 4-3-3-3, and a couple of genius pairs at other tables were off 1 in 6NT.

[johnu]

akwoo, on 2013-October-23, 19:40, said:

As for partnership harmony, I would much rather have a partner who considers passing this (whether they do or not) than a partner who doesn't. The former shows imagination and an understanding of the quirks of matchpoints scoring. The latter just shows slavish following of rules.

On the one hand, 4NT wasn't asking partner to show his bridge expertise, it was asking partner to count the number of keycards and respond accordingly. On the other hand, there's no rule that you can't randomly bid whatever comes to mind.

[P_Marlowe]

akwoo, on 2013-October-23, 19:40, said:

For those of you who didn't like the 3♦ bid...

what if the bidding had gone

1♦ - (2♠) - X - (3♠)
P - P - 4N - P

instead?

(of course at this point one should question whether 4N is blackwood, but assume it is - a partnership agreement that you double 3♠ first to show a quantitative slam invitation would surely be a reasonable option)

The reason to pass is of course that 4N scores better at matchpoints than 5♦, and slam seems unlikely given I have no keycards.

(BTW, in real life, my partner held this hand, not me, and I didn't double 2♠; I just jumped to 4N. Passing 4N would indeed have gotten us half a board as both 4N and 5♦ make.)
<nsip>

If 4NT is Blackwood, than responder will have 5 diamonds, 4 hearts.
If you pass 4NT, you may play there with 3 or 4 spades between you, i.e. you will need 10 running tricks on top.
Assuming partner has the Ace of diamonds, this makes 5D, 1S, and you still need to get the hearts right, and that
partner has the Ace of hearts.
If you pass 4NT, you risk, going down in 4NT, when slam is making.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[cherdano]

akwoo, on 2013-October-23, 19:40, said:

For those of you who didn't like the 3♦ bid...

what if the bidding had gone

1♦ - (2♠) - X - (3♠)
P - P - 4N - P

instead?

(of course at this point one should question whether 4N is blackwood, but assume it is - a partnership agreement that you double 3♠ first to show a quantitative slam invitation would surely be a reasonable option)

The reason to pass is of course that 4N scores better at matchpoints than 5♦, and slam seems unlikely given I have no keycards.

(BTW, in real life, my partner held this hand, not me, and I didn't double 2♠; I just jumped to 4N. Passing 4N would indeed have gotten us half a board as both 4N and 5♦ make.)

As for partnership harmony, I would much rather have a partner who considers passing this (whether they do or not) than a partner who doesn't. The former shows imagination and an understanding of the quirks of matchpoints scoring. The latter just shows slavish following of rules.

This is is a non-problem in my view. Partner expects me to have a weak NT and is asking for keycards in diamonds. I have a weak notrump and will tell partner my number of keycards. I even have an extra diamond for him.

This is different from the original auction, where partner should expect me to have 6 diamonds. Or maybe, if you play that way, a weak NT with no stopper in spades.

[BillHiggin]

akwoo, on 2013-October-23, 19:40, said:

As for partnership harmony, I would much rather have a partner who considers passing this (whether they do or not) than a partner who doesn't. The former shows imagination and an understanding of the quirks of matchpoints scoring. The latter just shows slavish following of rules.

Give it your favorite sugar coated name, the rest of us know "masterminding" when we see it. This is NEVER a good foundation for a partnership.