[jdonn]

Your (over)bidding made it clear that you lacked heart control, so partner should know to convert with just the king in hearts. Sorry master-P but I still think this one's on you.

Are you sure Fred and Brad never cuebid shortness? I think I remember quite the opposite from those improving 2/1 articles Fred wrote. But for all I know you might have talked to them recently.

I also believe pass does transfer control of the auction to partner, in that he might bid 5NT on the example hand you give him.

[whereagles]

pclayton, on Apr 4 2006, 06:25 PM, said:

I'm curious about others ideas on captaincy as it relates to these key card sequences.

I think capitaincy should have been settled long before you engaged in cue-bidding.

Like blackwood, cue-bidding is a tool that should be used AFTER the partnership has established that the values for slam are there. The correct bidding strategy is first to find out to which level you should be bidding and THEN check on location of high cards, not the other way around.

The convention you were playing didn't seem to be prepared for a correct bidding strategy, so I would label it as 'unsound'. Yes, I am saying that classical J2NT follow-ups are UNSOUND.

[hotShot]

Well seems to me you were too regulated.
How would partner have shown a shortness? 4♥? You lost the 2 level to Jacoby and you are willing to to give up most o the 3 and 4 level to show shortness, that is wasting far to much bidding space.
The idea of Jacoby is to start quebidding at the 3 level, that way you can cue bid aces, kings and queens before you reach 6M.

Do you have a good reason to mix cuebids with RCKB? You allready knew that partner had A♦. He had a much better view of the hands from his side.
With 2NT he gained control over the auction and with 4NT you took it back.


Here is an alternative follow up for your Jacoby bidding:
over 3♣ use 3♦ as some sort of voidwood.
3♥ void
3♠ 03 aces
3NT 41 aces .....
If you are void, partner uses the next bid to reask for aces without ♣.
This way you can allways investigate aces below 4♠.

[mikeh]

whereagles, on Apr 4 2006, 01:53 PM, said:

I think capitaincy should have been settled long before you engaged in cue-bidding.

Like blackwood, cue-bidding is a tool that should be used AFTER the partnership has established that the values for slam are there. The correct bidding strategy is first to find out to which level you should be bidding and THEN check on location of high cards, not the other way around.

This is entirely contrary to everything I have ever learned about slam bidding.

Keycard is a tool used to find out if slam should be avoided and/or whether grand is playable. Cue bidding is used, in expert partnerships, both to explore and express slam interest and to determine possession or lack of controls.

Indeed, the essence of cue-bidding is that captaincy often has NOT been assumed: I detect a belief in some posts that there is always a captain: nonsense. Bidding is far more frequently a collaborative effort, with captaincy being assumed only once one partner is possessed of sufficient information that he can take charge. Cue-bidding, especially below game, is a dialogue, not an interrogation.

Thus over the shortness showing 3♣, 3♦ said that east was not looking at a terrible hand for the auction to date and invited opener to cue if opener held more than a dead minimum (some partnerships might go so far as to say that west HAD to cue, but that is a matter of style: I don't play this form of Jacoby in any of my regular partnerships)

Then 4♣ said that west hand no 1st round ♥ control but had the stiff ♣A. It invited East to sign off or to continue the slam exploration as he saw fit.

4♥ denied the ability to keycard and announced ongoing slam interest.

Note that neither side had forced to slam yet: the partnership had not yet established that slam values were present: a good partnership could well duplicate this auction and still play 4♠.

As for why 4♥ should promise the King, I simply don't understand it. I am not arguing with the assertion that Fred/Brad do not cue shortness, but I find it surprising.

If you do not cue shortness, then you are always forcing splinter bids on one partner or the other, and splinter bids are very space consuming and will prevent many subtle auctions.

Thus, on a different layout:

KQxxxx    AJxxx
xxx         x
Kxx         AQJx
A           xxx

The given auction followed by 5♦ over 4♥ allows East to bid slam with confidence (the 5♦ has to be the K, since West has shown a stiff ♣)

A splinter would perhaps get you there, but how does West know that partner is not AJxxx Q Axxx Qxx?..... more hcp and slam with no play

[whereagles]

mikeh wrote:

> Keycard is a tool used to find out if slam should be
> avoided and/or whether grand is playable.

What exactly do you mean by this? In my understanding, the correct use of RKCB is that first you determine whether the combined hand potential is in the slam zone and THEN you bid 4NT so as to stay out of a slam with 2 keys missing.


> Cue bidding is used, in expert partnerships, both to
> explore and express slam interest and to determine
> possession or lack of controls.

I don't think professional partnerships that have bothered to discuss cuebidding bid like that. There are two ways to cuebid soundly. One is mixing cuebids with stuff like last train, so as to know whether player A or B has extras. The other way is to find out about extras first (using stuff like FSF, serious/frivolous 3NT, etc), and THEN start cuebids. Cuebidding just for the sake of it is a quick and enjoyable route to hopeless slams.


> Indeed, the essence of cue-bidding is that
> captaincy often has NOT been assumed: I
> detect a belief in some posts that there is
> always a captain: nonsense. Bidding is far
> more frequently a collaborative effort, with
> captaincy being assumed only once one
> partner is possessed of sufficient information
> that he can take charge. Cue-bidding,
> especially below game, is a dialogue, not an interrogation.

I disagree with that strategy of "cuebid first, take decisions later" because the information you get from cuebids is far less important than knowing whether player A or B has extras. Unless you have an agreement that "any cuebid automatically shows extras", using cuebidding as a dialogue is simply following a wrong strategy.

Anyway, I have the feeling we're basically saying the same thing with different words, but you seem to want to disagree with me while in fact agreeing

[Al_U_Card]

My apologies.

I am used to playing mostly pick-up partnerships where I always try to give pard a Black or White choice if I can. When its 70% gray, I just get into too much trouble and I have enough bad results already thank you. For me it was clear, at least, even if it might make the hand "more difficult" to bid scientifically.

But at least with the splinter we would never have found 6NT.......

[bid_em_up]

jdonn, on Apr 4 2006, 10:45 AM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Apr 4 2006, 08:14 AM, said:

West is 0% to blame.  EAST should SPLINTER in H, as Jacoby is used as a BALANCED forcing raise.

That is simply an untrue statement. There is no other way to put it. Jacoby does not deny shortness and it never has.

You can't seriously believe that, can you? Ok, maybe you do, but....seriously

"JACOBY 2NT - Updated
With the advent of limit raises a need for a forcing raise resurfaced. Since there was rarely a need to play in 3NT when we had a 9+ card fit in a Major, Oswald Jacoby suggested using a jump to 2NT after Partner's opening 1H/1S (without an intervening bid) to show 4 card support with opening bid strength in a balanced hand."

The idea was that you already had splinter bids to show the values in responders hand that contained shortness, and why opener shows his shortness as a response (because responder is known to be balanced). You may choose to play it as containing a stiff or void, but to assert that it "never" has denied shortness is absolutely false.

[pclayton]

bid_em_up, on Apr 5 2006, 10:19 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 4 2006, 10:45 AM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Apr 4 2006, 08:14 AM, said:

West is 0% to blame.  EAST should SPLINTER in H, as Jacoby is used as a BALANCED forcing raise.

That is simply an untrue statement. There is no other way to put it. Jacoby does not deny shortness and it never has.

You can't seriously believe that, can you? Ok, maybe you do, but....seriously

"JACOBY 2NT - Updated
With the advent of limit raises a need for a forcing raise resurfaced. Since there was rarely a need to play in 3NT when we had a 9+ card fit in a Major, Oswald Jacoby suggested using a jump to 2NT after Partner's opening 1H/1S (without an intervening bid) to show 4 card support with opening bid strength in a balanced hand."

Yes, I think I remember seeing this excerpt from a 1952 Harper's Bazaar next to an ad for bomb shelters and a picture of the 1953 Nash.

[bid_em_up]

pclayton, on Apr 5 2006, 01:24 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Apr 5 2006, 10:19 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 4 2006, 10:45 AM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Apr 4 2006, 08:14 AM, said:

West is 0% to blame.  EAST should SPLINTER in H, as Jacoby is used as a BALANCED forcing raise.

That is simply an untrue statement. There is no other way to put it. Jacoby does not deny shortness and it never has.

You can't seriously believe that, can you? Ok, maybe you do, but....seriously

"JACOBY 2NT - Updated
With the advent of limit raises a need for a forcing raise resurfaced. Since there was rarely a need to play in 3NT when we had a 9+ card fit in a Major, Oswald Jacoby suggested using a jump to 2NT after Partner's opening 1H/1S (without an intervening bid) to show 4 card support with opening bid strength in a balanced hand."

Yes, I think I remember seeing this excerpt from a 1952 Harper's Bazaar next to an ad for bomb shelters and a picture of the 1953 Nash.

Well, if it was good enough for Ozzy.....then who am I to mess with it?

[han]

Is this a pick-up partnership Phil? I'm not going to assign blame, there is just too much wrong with this auction:

1. You are playing standard Jacoby 2NT.

2. East wasn't able to splinter over 3C. (not splintering directly seems right)

3. East showed the heart ace or king, but had shortness.

4. The known hand took control by bidding blackwood. Even worse, West then bid 6NT without knowing much about east's hand, which is both wrong and just wrong.


Phil says:

Here's the real issue. The keycard bidder is in control of the auction. When 5♥ is doubled, does pass (or redouble) transfer control to responder?

This is not the real issue at all! All this talk about captaincy is going to steer you away from the real issues (in my humble opinion, with due respect, etc.).

[pclayton]

Hannie, on Apr 5 2006, 11:36 AM, said:

Is this a pick-up partnership Phil? I'm not going to assign blame, there is just too much wrong with this auction:

1. You are playing standard Jacoby 2NT.

2. East wasn't able to splinter over 3C. (not splintering directly seems right)

3. East showed the heart ace or king, but had shortness.

4. The known hand took control by bidding blackwood. Even worse, West then bid 6NT without knowing much about east's hand, which is both wrong and just wrong.


Phil says:

Here's the real issue. The keycard bidder is in control of the auction. When 5♥ is doubled, does pass (or redouble) transfer control to responder?

This is not the real issue at all! All this talk about captaincy is going to steer you away from the real issues (in my humble opinion, with due respect, etc.).

Brian and I have been playing about 3 years. Yet, we have rather ill-defined agreements.

Put it this way, if I can't get him to play anything other than crappy old Jacoby, how am I ever going to get his attention about a situation as subtle as a doubled key card auction?

He did agree that 4♥ would be a splinter over 3♣, but hadn't considered it at the time.

No respect needed (or earned).

[luke warm]

i agree with gerben, the blame goes to the 2nt bid (iow, the system)... i'm not talking about whether or not it can contain shortness, but on why there's no system bid for 12-15 with a splinter...