BBO Discussion Forums: 1NT opener asking for Keycards - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1NT opener asking for Keycards is that reasonable at all?

#1 User is offline   Sigi_BC84 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 470
  • Joined: 2006-January-20

Posted 2006-March-02, 16:21

Hi,

I've got a general question concerning captaincy which is a big issue for my main partnership at the moment. I'm not sure if it belongs in the Advanced/Expert forum, but I've got disagreeing opinions by different Experts already so I'm posting here to get some more ;-).

We were playing in a serious event and the following hand came up:

Scoring: IMP

p-1NT-p-2(1);
X-3(2)-p-3(3);
p-4...

(1) transfer to (6+ or 5+5+ minors)
(2) shows 3+
(3) shows a splinter Edit: shortness, not limiting


I was South. Usually we play 4m if natural and uncontested as RKCB for that suit, especially if a fit in the suit has been agreed before (which is clearly the case with this hand). Accordingly, 4 could be RKCB here.

Also it should deny substantial spade values in any case (quite likely anyway given the lead directing double from West).

Now I was wondering if partner was really asking for Aces at this point. After some pondering I decided that it's not really useful for 1NT opener to do this so I decided it must be a waiting bid and cuebid 4. Partner, however, thought I was showing 0/3 keycards and signed off in 5 (I assumed we are lacking control and passed accordingly).
Slam in either minor was cold so we lost many IMPs on this board. I admit that this was on the verge of masterminding, because I should have kept it simple since I could have known that he is asking for keycards since we had never discussed this situation.

We then had a discussion where I took the position that 1NT opener should never ask for anything and leave that to responder regardless what he holds. Actually I can hardly imagine a situation where opener is actually in a better position to ask for keycards than responder. Partner disagrees, claiming that this hand is a good example to support his position. According to him it is clearcut that 4 must be RKCB in this sequence.

Now I have asked a few people about their opinion. Gerben said straight away that 4 shows a positive hand for slam but is not KCB since opener never asks and that 4 could be played as KCB in this sequence, alternately responder starts cuebidding.

Unfortunately the strong players from my club I usually consult are disagreeing, claiming like my partner that 4 is the one exception from this rule in this case so should be ace ask. Partner refuses to talk about this at the moment because he's getting emotional in no time when the issue comes up. So it's major problem for me and I need your opinion.

1. What would you have assumed at the table playing with your regular partner?
2. Was I really that far off (or even masterminding) when assuming that partner can't be asking but 4 must be waiting and positive?
3. Does it make sense at all for 1NT opener to make any asking bids, ever?

Thanks in advance for any comments.

--Sigi
0

#2 User is offline   DrTodd13 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,156
  • Joined: 2003-July-03
  • Location:Portland, Oregon

Posted 2006-March-02, 16:30

In a sense, one could argue that you've given captaincy back to 1N opener by making a splinter which is asking for him to evaluate his hand for slam given your spade shortness. He very much likes his hand for slam now and wants to verify it with 4C RKCB. It seems that splinters may transfer captaincy.
0

#3 Guest_Jlall_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 2006-March-02, 16:31

DrTodd13, on Mar 2 2006, 05:30 PM, said:

It seems that splinters may transfer captaincy.

Agree with this. 1N openers are usually not captian, but neither are splinter bidders. Partner is in the best shape to evaluate and take control once the splinter is made.
0

#4 User is offline   Sigi_BC84 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 470
  • Joined: 2006-January-20

Posted 2006-March-02, 16:32

DrTodd13, on Mar 2 2006, 11:30 PM, said:

In a sense, one could argue that you've given captaincy back to 1N opener by making a splinter which is asking for him to evaluate his hand for slam given your spade shortness. He very much likes his hand for slam now and wants to verify it with 4C RKCB. It seems that splinters may transfer captaincy.

OK before more people jump on this train: I wrote splinter to make it clear that it's a small singleton.

3 was not limiting my hand, it simply showed shortness (not stiff honour) and presumably slam interest.

--Sigi
0

#5 User is offline   Sigi_BC84 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 470
  • Joined: 2006-January-20

Posted 2006-March-02, 16:35

Sigi_BC84, on Mar 2 2006, 11:32 PM, said:

3 was not limiting my hand, it simply showed shortness (not stiff honour) and presumably slam interest.

NB it could be a void as well. I shouldn't have written Splinter in the first place, that was misleading.
--Sigi
0

#6 User is offline   Sigi_BC84 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 470
  • Joined: 2006-January-20

Posted 2006-March-02, 16:43

Jlall, on Mar 2 2006, 11:31 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Mar 2 2006, 05:30 PM, said:

It seems that splinters may transfer captaincy.

Agree with this. 1N openers are usually not captian, but neither are splinter bidders. Partner is in the best shape to evaluate and take control once the splinter is made.

Assuming it was a proper Splinter, ie. limited or showing slam interest only if not much wasted in : If we assume that opener shows values by bidding 3NT and denies values by bidding 4 in any case -- and I guess that should be common sense -- wouldn't it be better for responder to ask with a relay. Since responder knows more about opener than the other way around.

This is what I based my guesswork at the table on.

--Sigi
0

#7 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,807
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2006-March-02, 16:48

Sigi_BC84, on Mar 3 2006, 01:21 AM, said:

We then had a discussion where I took the position that 1NT opener should never ask for anything and leave that to responder regardless what he holds.  Actually I can hardly imagine a situation where opener is actually in a better position to ask for keycards than responder.  Partner disagrees, claiming that this hand is a good example to support his position.  According to him it is clearcut that 4 must be RKCB in this sequence.

I agree with your partner... What's the point of making a long series of descriptive bids to partner if he is never able to act upon this information?

Structures based on a one way exchange of information are typically quite inefficient. For example, simplistic relay schemes in which one player always makes a first step response to ask for more information leave large amounts of the bidding tree unpopulated. This doesn't directly address your question, which is more related to when the chain should be broken rather than IF the chain should be broken. (I suspect that you would agree that at some point in time, the NT opener will need to place the contract)

Couple last points:

1. Relay systems typically work best when the balanced hand asks and the unbalanced hand shows. This result is a simple function of the fact that the NT opener is better positioned to appreciate whether or not his honors are working.

2. Once you've showing long clubs AND short hearts, the NT opener is in a VERY good position to undertand how the hands fit together. I would think that the 3 bid would be a natural point to transition and permit the NT opener the option of shaping the auction by asking some more specific questions. Admitted, here you have a situation in which the balanced hand is limited in strength. Even so, you seem to be in a slam invitational auction so quantitative issues aren't quite as important as normal.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#8 User is offline   pclayton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,151
  • Joined: 2003-June-11
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 2006-March-02, 16:48

Had lunch with my regular partner and we discussed this as well. There can be certain auctions where responder transfers captaincy back to the 1N opener. Splinters are one situation, but also: 1N - Jacoby transfer - acceptance - 4D (balanced slam try) are another.

There are many other situations where captaincy passes back to the 1N opener. In your sequence, we would play 4 of the other minor as key card, and 4C as just trump agreement.
"Phil" on BBO
0

#9 User is offline   Sigi_BC84 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 470
  • Joined: 2006-January-20

Posted 2006-March-02, 17:34

Quote

bidding tree unpopulated.  This doesn't directly address your question, which is more related to when the chain should be broken rather than IF the chain should be broken.  (I suspect that you would agree that at some point in time, the NT opener will need to place the contract)

I think that in this case (and similar cases) responder is quite well positioned to place the contract after gathering the necessary information from opener. I don't understand why NT opener will need to place the contract.

And no, my main question was if the chain could be broken at all, which you answered yes while adding that 3 would be the pivot point in this case, where relays and captaincy reverses, if I understand you correctly.

Quote

2.  Once you've showing long clubs AND short hearts, the NT opener is in a VERY good position to undertand how the hands fit together.

That argument was made by one of the players I've talked to but I don't understand why responder should be in a worse position here: Responder knows of the fit in clubs and that there are no wasted values in spades, so he should be equally able to see that the hands fit as opener does. With the added advantage that he knows more about openers strength and shape than the other way around.

Additionally it costs only one step to have responder ask.

My main point is the following: After the 4 bid we can not decide who is captain. Either responder has to answer KCB now or responder should have the choice to ask with 4 or start cuebidding with 4up. A generic agreement is needed which one applies because it can be only either one of the two.

I think that generally responder should be better positioned (dismissing the balanced hand principle at this point for the reasons given above) so the agreement for the partnership should be: responder stays captain thus asks.

Which agreement would you make with your partner?

--Sigi
0

#10 User is offline   MickyB 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,289
  • Joined: 2004-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England

Posted 2006-March-02, 17:36

From the title of your post, I thought you were suggesting that you play the responses to 1NT as showing keycards. I think that would be a much better idea.
0

#11 User is offline   joshs 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,082
  • Joined: 2006-January-23

Posted 2006-March-02, 17:53

Sigi_BC84, on Mar 2 2006, 05:21 PM, said:

Hi,

I've got a general question concerning captaincy which is a big issue for my main partnership at the moment. I'm not sure if it belongs in the Advanced/Expert forum, but I've got disagreeing opinions by different Experts already so I'm posting here to get some more ;-).

We were playing in a serious event and the following hand came up:

Scoring: IMP

p-1NT-p-2(1);
X-3(2)-p-3(3);
p-4...

(1) transfer to (6+ or 5+5+ minors)
(2) shows 3+
(3) shows a splinter Edit: shortness, not limiting


I was South. Usually we play 4m if natural and uncontested as RKCB for that suit, especially if a fit in the suit has been agreed before (which is clearly the case with this hand). Accordingly, 4 could be RKCB here.

Also it should deny substantial spade values in any case (quite likely anyway given the lead directing double from West).

Now I was wondering if partner was really asking for Aces at this point. After some pondering I decided that it's not really useful for 1NT opener to do this so I decided it must be a waiting bid and cuebid 4. Partner, however, thought I was showing 0/3 keycards and signed off in 5 (I assumed we are lacking control and passed accordingly).
Slam in either minor was cold so we lost many IMPs on this board. I admit that this was on the verge of masterminding, because I should have kept it simple since I could have known that he is asking for keycards since we had never discussed this situation.

We then had a discussion where I took the position that 1NT opener should never ask for anything and leave that to responder regardless what he holds. Actually I can hardly imagine a situation where opener is actually in a better position to ask for keycards than responder. Partner disagrees, claiming that this hand is a good example to support his position. According to him it is clearcut that 4 must be RKCB in this sequence.

Now I have asked a few people about their opinion. Gerben said straight away that 4 shows a positive hand for slam but is not KCB since opener never asks and that 4 could be played as KCB in this sequence, alternately responder starts cuebidding.

Unfortunately the strong players from my club I usually consult are disagreeing, claiming like my partner that 4 is the one exception from this rule in this case so should be ace ask. Partner refuses to talk about this at the moment because he's getting emotional in no time when the issue comes up. So it's major problem for me and I need your opinion.

1. What would you have assumed at the table playing with your regular partner?
2. Was I really that far off (or even masterminding) when assuming that partner can't be asking but 4 must be waiting and positive?
3. Does it make sense at all for 1NT opener to make any asking bids, ever?

Thanks in advance for any comments.

--Sigi

On a side note, I am slightly confused by the auction. Did 3S show shortage with 6+ Clubs, with both minors, or is it still unclear? (If it is still unclear, its really hard for opener to evaulate his hand, and what exactly would a 4D bid by opener mean? He likes diamonds if you happen to have diamonds?)

On another note, this is why one of the conventions I absolutely refuse to play is autowood (4 of an agreed minor is rkc in that minor). Its only slightly odious when the suit has legitamately been agreed earlier, but its really bad here when the only way of setting clubs as trumps is bidding clubs. You always need to have some way of setting trumps in a slam auction without assuming captaincy, leaving partner room to assume captaincy if he feels its appropriate.

As to the question, can opener have a hand that justifies captaincy here? Yes he can, with xxx AK AKx Kxxxx opener is off to the races (or many hands that are not quite as good as this one). If you have a way of bidding rkc immediately, its perfectly appropriate to do it. You can make slam opposite the club ace and either red Q, and responder has shown more than that.

The question is what to bid with:
Axx Kxxx Ax KJxx ?
Opener has a lovely hand for play in clubs, but isn't strong enough to insist on slam opposite one ace and the trump Q (if you bid rkc you are expected to bid slam unless you are missing more than 2 of the 6 key cards). You need to have some way of saying "I like clubs but am not strong enough to take over, what do you think?"

If you have some other bid for this hand, that lets responder bid rkc if appropriate, or cue-bidding if not, then its ok to use 4C as rkc (but any other bid will be higher than 4C, so responder will not have rkc available at a low enough level to have any hope of stopping in 5C opposite too few keycards).

Anyway, this is why I play kickback (1 over the trump suit as keycard). This lets opener on most hands that like clubs, just bid 4C setting trumps, surrendering captaincy, but on the occasional hand that only needs to know about keycards, can bid key card directly.

Now having said all that, if your agreement is that 4m in a forcing auction is rkc in m, then in this auction it is rkc in m, regardless of whether I think this treatment is a good idea....
0

#12 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,584
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2006-March-02, 18:43

I have long played that the 1N opener can never ask for keycards.

I see no reason to depart from that approach.

I do not agree that splinters operate as a transfer of captaincy.

The non-splintering partner may, and quite often does, actively take on captaincy after a splinter, but that is not the same as saying that the splinter bestowed or transferred captaincy.

The auction through 3 was a collaborative dialogue: each partner both giving and receiving information. The non-splinter partner will usually, after a splinter do one of three things:

cuebid: this continues the dialogue with no assertion nor surrender of captaincy. The mantle of captain lies unclaimed, because unneeded, as yet.

signoff: this is not an assumption of captaincy because the splintering partner is permitted (altho in most partnerships not expected) to bid on.

keycard or jump to the final (slam) contract, or use 5N in some agreed-upon manner: these are assumptions of captaincy.

To me, I find nothing in this auction that suggests that the partnership needs or benefits from opener being able to (let alone actually) take on captaincy.

So I see no reason to give up the certainty that stems from the rule (in my partnerships) that the 1N opener can never use keycard. Maybe it is possible to create a pair of hands, and a plausible sequence, where the use of keycard by opener is necessary, but I have never encountered such a situation at the table nor seen it in print.

However, I concede that some good players will disagree with me...yes, it's true, it has happened before! :)

So really this post merely affirms that it is better to have an agreement, even if sub-optimal, than no agreement at all. On that basis, the fault lies with North who had no need to become captain: what did he have to lose by bidding 4, followed by 4 followed by .... 4N, forward going, stronger than 5 but not forcing beyond 5 or 5, catering to partner's possible void, or 6, the practical slam bid.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

#13 User is offline   bearmum 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 757
  • Joined: 2003-July-06
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 2006-March-02, 18:57

IMHO as 1NT is limited specifically to (I presume) 15-17 points it's RESPONDER'S job to take responsibility for the final contract -- especially as to go looking for slam -- because resopner KNOWS the combined point count and probable distribution of the cards (in so far as Partner has a minimum of 2 cards in any one suit)

SO -- had been N I would bid 4 Q bid (agreeing as suit) in the hope that Sth could continue q bidding , as I don't believe it's Nths responsibility to use RKCB here (especially as the bid could be --& in this cas obviously was :D misconstrued) :)

The reason I would use the Q bid here is the fact that I have NO wasted points in s-therefore making it likely that GAME in is most likely there -- as P splintered :D
0

#14 User is offline   Sigi_BC84 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 470
  • Joined: 2006-January-20

Posted 2006-March-02, 19:13

joshs, on Mar 3 2006, 12:53 AM, said:

On a side note, I am slightly confused by the auction. Did 3S show shortage with 6+ Clubs, with both minors, or is it still unclear? (If it is still unclear, its really hard for opener to evaulate his hand, and what exactly would a 4D bid by opener mean? He likes diamonds if you happen to have diamonds?)

I didn't bid my hand perfectly to begin with. Over the double by West, 3 was a super-accept (showing 3+) so were set as trumps at this point. I could have bid 3 over 3 showing 5-5 or better in the minor, but I chose to show my singleton in since opener had shown me the club fit already.

Quote

The question is what to bid with:
Axx  Kxxx Ax KJxx ?
Opener has a lovely hand for play in clubs, but isn't strong enough to insist on slam opposite one ace and the trump Q (if you bid rkc you are expected to bid slam unless you are missing more than 2 of the 6 key cards). You need to have some way of saying "I like clubs but am not strong enough to take over, what do you think?"

I think the 4 bid by opener should do just about that after the super accept.

Quote

If you have some other bid for this hand, that lets responder bid rkc if appropriate, or cue-bidding if not, then its ok to use 4C as rkc (but any other bid will be higher than 4C, so responder will not have rkc available at a low enough level to have any hope of stopping in 5C opposite too few keycards).

As noted above, an alternative bid would have been 3, after which opener should probably cuebid
in a major if possible (3 in this case), then responder can cuebid and now opener will set the better suit as trumps on the four level (raising old question again if this would be immediate KCB, but I got your point that it's a bad idea).

Quote

Anyway, this is why I play kickback (1 over the trump suit as keycard). This lets opener on most hands that like clubs, just bid 4C setting trumps, surrendering captaincy, but on the occasional hand that only needs to know about keycards, can bid key card directly.

Very nice to have that agreement in this auction, because then it's unambiguos: 4 was simply waiting, 4 would have been keycard (over 4 now responder can keycard with 4, since had been set as trumps already via super accept as mentioned).

Quote

Now having said all that, if your agreement is that 4m in a forcing auction is rkc in m, then in this auction it is rkc in m, regardless of whether I think this treatment is a good idea....

Yeah, I should have stuck with that principle in this auction instead of masterminding my way into a cuebidding sequence that never existed in the first place. This was actually never the question on this hand.

Thanks a lot for your response Josh -- now everything is a lot clearer for me. Partner will be happy when reading this I guess ;-).

--Sigi
0

#15 User is offline   Sigi_BC84 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 470
  • Joined: 2006-January-20

Posted 2006-March-02, 19:29

mikeh, on Mar 3 2006, 01:43 AM, said:

I do not agree that splinters operate as a transfer of captaincy.

The non-splintering partner may, and quite often does, actively take on captaincy after a splinter, but that is not the same as saying that the splinter bestowed or transferred captaincy.

This contradicts what Fred said in another thread that splintering absolutely surrenders captaincy (if I'm remembering correctly). I think that this is perfectly reasonable, since a splinter should be both limited within very narrow bounds and well defined with regard to distribution. Edit: that was wrong, Fred didn't say that. See below for link to original post by Fred.

Quote

To me, I find nothing in this auction that suggests that the partnership needs or benefits from opener being able to (let alone actually) take on captaincy.

So I see no reason to give up the certainty that stems from the rule (in my partnerships) that the 1N opener can never use keycard. Maybe it is possible to create a pair of hands, and a plausible sequence, where the use of keycard by opener is necessary, but I have never encountered such a situation at the table nor seen it in print.

This is exactly what I'm feeling and it's what I was trying to communicate to partner and fellow club members in our arguments about this hand.

Quote

So really this post merely affirms that it is better to have an agreement, even if sub-optimal, than no agreement at all. On that basis, the fault lies with North who had no need to become captain: what did he have to lose by bidding 4, followed by 4 followed by .... 4N, forward going, stronger than 5 but not forcing beyond 5 or 5, catering to partner's possible void, or 6, the practical slam bid.

The only agreement we had was that 4 asks for keycards so I should have followed that principle here, be it reasonable or not.

--Sigi
0

#16 User is offline   joshs 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,082
  • Joined: 2006-January-23

Posted 2006-March-02, 19:40

Sigi_BC84, on Mar 2 2006, 08:13 PM, said:

Quote

The question is what to bid with:
Axx  Kxxx Ax KJxx ?
Opener has a lovely hand for play in clubs, but isn't strong enough to insist on slam opposite one ace and the trump Q (if you bid rkc you are expected to bid slam unless you are missing more than 2 of the 6 key cards). You need to have some way of saying "I like clubs but am not strong enough to take over, what do you think?"

I think the 4 bid by opener should do just about that after the super accept.

After 3S showing a singleton (even after-preacceptance), there are basically only 2 main choices here:
3N wastage in spades, usually 1.5 stoppers (but not AJx) or something like Kxx which is totally wasted for suit play with fast tricks on the side
4C keycard

There really needs be something in the middle. Its fine for that something in the middle to be a cue-bid, it just sadly doesn't leave you any space to bid keycard. But this is not an unusual problem when looking for minor suit slams....
Its unfortuent that the frequent bids (the Q-bids) use up more space than the infrequent bid, but thats just a consequence of your agreements and you have to either
a. live with them
b. make them more complicated (add exceptions) that risk having accidents

BTW, its worth tracking what % of the time opener bids rkc in this auction relative to cue-bidding or 3N. I don't think the rkc by opener should occur more than about 20-25% of the time even after a super-acceptance. I would expect something like:
3N 50%
Qbid 35%
rkc 15%
but thats just my guess
0

#17 User is offline   Sigi_BC84 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 470
  • Joined: 2006-January-20

Posted 2006-March-02, 19:41

MickyB, on Mar 3 2006, 12:36 AM, said:

From the title of your post, I thought you were suggesting that you play the responses to 1NT as showing keycards. I think that would be a much better idea.

The wording of the topic title is quite ambiguous. What I meant was: "Is it reasonable at all for the NT opener to be able to ask for keycards [later in the auction]?"
--Sigi
0

#18 User is offline   joshs 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,082
  • Joined: 2006-January-23

Posted 2006-March-02, 20:23

I have some remarks on captaincy.

Defintiion: A hand type is a loose description of shape.
Hand types are:
a. balanced
b. 1 suited (show the suit)
c. 2 suited (show the suits)
d. 3 suited (show the singleton)


In general, bids that describe a hand type and a reasonably well defined strength range, TEMPORARILY, surrender captaincy, unless partner chooses to make the auction co-operative, or describe his hand enough to you, so that you have more information than he does.

When you open 1N and partner x-fers to hearts opener has no right to insist on playing in clubs. Responder knows a lot more about openers hand than opener does about responder's. So responder is in charge.

When partner opens 1H and you splinter with 4C showing, in your agreements 12-14 HCP, a singleton in clubs, and 4 trumps. If partner signs off in 4H you can't bid on if you, in fact, have anything that resembles 12-14 HCP and a singleton club. Even thinking about bidding on is a misbid. If you splintered with 18 HCP when you only promised 12-14 with the hope that you might get to a grand slam if partner was excited by the splinter, you can now bid on toward the small slam. You gave partner a chance to assume captaincy, but when he didn't assume captaincy, you are allowed to take over again if your hand is VERY different than what you have previously described. If opener chose to Qbid rather than bid rkc or sign off, he is passing the ball back to you saying he still doesn't know what to do. Qbidding auctions can be thought of as "captaincy passing", especially below the keycard bid.

In an auction under discussion in another thread : 1S-1N(forcing)-2D-2S-3C opener has shown a 17-18 HCP hand and has give absolute captaincy to partner. The only bids that pass captaincy back are various bids of the 4'th suit.

After opening 1N, responder is temporarily in charge. But later in the auction, captaincy is often passed back to opener. After 1N-2D(x-fer)-2H-3C
Its openers job to select the strain, and (usually) responder's job to select the level. But if opener's hand is substantionally upgraded based on responder's shape, he might on rare occasion boost the level, if responder has allready suggested playing at the 5 level (e.g. a minor has been introduced) or has expressed slam interest (a major suit bid then a splinter). The idea is as follows "wow, partner thinks we can make 11 tricks opposite my usual dreck. With this super hand, we certainly have a good chance of making 12 tricks!"

There are many other bids that transfer captaincy, at least initially. Pre-empts for instance. The describe the hand type (1 suiter) and the strength range and leave partner in charge.

As another example, consider the following 2 auctions:
1S-P-1N(forcing)-P
2D-P-2S-P
P-3H-x
This is almost universally viewed as penalty since opener has described his hand type (2 suiter) and stength range (here its slightly wide about 11-16).

Contrast this with
1S-P-1N(forcing)-3H
P-P-x

Here the meaning is much less clear since openers hand type is not well defined. Most people play this as a good hand, but agreements vary about how offensive or defensive the x is (is it suggesting that opener pass if he has slight extra shape, or bid with slight extra shape)


There are many auctions that offer only a partial description of a hand. A 1N opener, for intance is balanced, but the exact shape is really not known. The auction 1M-1N-2M shows a 6 card suit but the rest of the shape is not known. The default agreement in all these auctions is that partner's x's are penalty, that opener must respect a sign off in another suit, etc. But its possibly to allow some leway in these auctions if opener's hand is exceptional, or if you have defined these x's as takeout. If you open 1N and partner x-fers to 2H occasionally you love hearts and tell partner the good news by bidding More than 2H. This is always possible. But overruling partner about strain would be very unusual....
0

#19 User is offline   keylime 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: FD TEAM
  • Posts: 2,734
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Miami, FL, USA
  • Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)

Posted 2006-March-02, 20:47

Josh hits the nail right on the head.

Very often over limited openings, opener upgrades/downgrades due to controls, texture, etc. over a splinter/slam try auction from responder. Also, not all 16 counts (arbitrary number) are equal:

AKTx A9x KQxx xx

Let's say it goes 1NT-2C-2S-4C*(splinter). This 16 count is gigantic. Control rich, good suits, let's make a slam go.

However same auction with hand AKTx Axx Kxxx Qx and yuck, need a lotta help.

Also, distributions as alluded to are key. If a splinter is may and opener's on an offshape NT with working side five card suit, you definitely are worth a slam try.
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
0

#20 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,584
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2006-March-02, 20:48

Sigi_BC84, on Mar 2 2006, 08:29 PM, said:

mikeh, on Mar 3 2006, 01:43 AM, said:

I do not agree that splinters operate as a transfer of captaincy.

The non-splintering partner may, and quite often does, actively take on captaincy after a splinter, but that is not the same as saying that the splinter bestowed or transferred captaincy.

This contradicts what Fred said in another thread that splintering absolutely surrenders captaincy (if I'm remembering correctly).

I ought to have been more precise. I completely agree that the splinter operates, at that stage, as a denial of captaincy. If Fred uses the term 'syrrender' of captaincy in that sense, there is no contradiction.

What I am really stressing is that in my view there will be many, many situations in which neither partner is captain: that captaincy has not been assumed.

Thus the splinter denies interest in being captain, at that stage of the auction, but does not insist that partner assume captaincy.

That is what I meant by suggesting that a common bid by the non-splinter hand is a cue: which may result (immediately or later) in the splinter hand assuming captaincy. If Fred said that all splinters forever forsake captaincy for the balance of the auction, then I respectfully disagree.

Also, bear in mind that not all splinter auctions are identical. Most would play that a splinter response to a 1 major opening, as an example, is tightly defined, and thus in those sequences, it is highly unlikely that responder will ever be in a position to assert captaincy, and (for reasons similar to my rule that a 1N opening bid may never keycard) it may be playable to state that the splinter hand can never thereafter take control: I have not previously considered this issue and am not stating a position on it. But we are engaged in a different sequence here, and I see no particular reason for responder's splinter to prevent responder from taking control. After all, opener might have been bidding 3N, and when he did not, responder's hand can become massively re-evaluated and thus the nature of the auction has changed (compared to 3N over the splinter).
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users