[inquiry]

Hannie, on Feb 6 2007, 02:18 PM, said:

Imagine a 2/1 auction like:

1H - 2C
2H - 3H
4D - 4NT
5H - 6C

5H showed 2 keycards without the queen. 6C can have two different meanings: It is either a try for 7 asking for a third round control, or it is a suggestion to play 6C. What should it be? Can you formulate a good general rule? If you play this as choice of strain, should opener often correct to 6H? Could you give a hand where it is close?

When a similar (but different) auction came up, the 6C bidder wanted to play there, opener jumped to 7H with xx in clubs, off the ace of hearts. Fortunately this was a practice bidding session.

What should (6♣) be? Can you formulate a good general rule? If you play this as choice of strain, should opener often correct to 6H? Could you give a hand where it is close?

The three choices for 6♣ are

• specific king asking bid ala Kantar RKCB book
  
• To play (not a choice of contracts)
  
• Choice of contracts

One can forumulate simple rules. Here are few you might consider....

• After trump agreement then RKCB, all new suit bids (other than queen ask) are specific king asking bid
  
• If after trump agreement and RKCB, if the asker bids his own (unsupported) suit at the six level, it is always to play
  
• If after trump agreement and RKCB, if the key card asker bids his own unsupported suit it is choice of contract

The question is would such simple rules be the most effective approach. I think this specific auction (assuming you use the 4♦ bid denies Spade A or K, and denies club A,K or Q) provides a lot of options. Here, 5♠ would no longer be useful as specific king ask, nor would 5NT be useful as other king ask, since one could in theory try 6♦ as the asking bid. So at this point, you have 5♠, 5NT, and 6♦ as possible grand slam probes or even pick a contract type thing (well not 6♦.

So here you go, some options. 5♠ could be looking for doubleton spade, 5NT could be pick a slam, 6♣ could be TO PLAY, and 6♦ could be either specific asking bid or Josephine looking for grand slam with a six card suit (to make up for a missing trump queen). I can't imagine a doubleton spade would EVER be the key on this auction, so we can forget about 5♠ asking anything in spades. So I would think the use of 5♠ to ask about the suit you can not ask about (clubs) would be better. This looks for club legnth. I would suggest using 5NT as pick a slam, and 6♣ as to play. I think the extra heart issue would be more important than the diamond KING for grand slam try, so I would use 6♦ as Josephine.

The problem with this, however, is that this is a very specific auction where opener knows that responder lacks cards in not one, but two suits (both blacks). So I am not sure you can come up with a specifc (and easy) rule to handle all of these.

I think if I had to come up with a specific, simple rule, I would say that an immediate rebid by the blackwood investigator in his own suit at the six level is to play.

[SoTired]

6C is part of RKC definition. It guarantees all 6 keys and asks for 3rd round club control. Replies are:
6H = ♣xxx
6N = ♣Q(x)
7C = ♣QJ(x)
7H = ♣xx or shorter
7N = All 6 keys and ♣AK is all I need to know

[kenrexford]

The issue of whether Opener holds the club Queen seems resolved if you use the cuebidding style many of us are assuming. Not there.

If your concern is about what to do with the club Queen and a diamond control, and the interplay between Serious 3NT and LTTC is bothering you, the "solution" as always depends upon style choices. My personal preference is for Serious 3NT to have certain expected parameters as defaults and LTTC certain parameters as defaults. Circumstantial specifics derive from the needs of an auction as assessed using these general defaults.

For instance, Serious 3NT tends toward good trumps when good trumps are not otherwise biddable, but LTTC tends towards seeking outside controls; thus, one could say that there is a tendency for 3NT to show internals but LTTC to ask about externals. Another tendency is for 3NT to show firsts and slow to show seconds (first-round control versus second-round control). Another tendency is for 3NT to show touchings and LTTC therefore to ask about non-touchings. Another tendency is for the various choices to be selected as it best facilitates future anticipated auctions.

So, when deciding what inference exists in a given auction, these tendencies and the specific auction, holdings, needs, etc., tailor understanding.

In the given auction, Opener has two primary possible problems -- inability to show good trumps and inability to show touching controls. A discussion of tendencies helps to conclude, if adopting or agreeing with my assessment of tendencies, that 3NT tends to imply good trumps and that LTTC would tend to ask if the club Queen was joined by a diamond control.

Thus, 4♦ can reliably be interpreted as denying the club Queen by the rules of cuebidding espoused to date, without concern for the touching-control problem because LTTC would "solve" that problem.

[mikeh]

inquiry, on Feb 7 2007, 11:19 AM, said:

The three choices for 6♣ are

• specific king asking bid ala Kantar RKCB book
  
  
• To play (not a choice of contracts)
  
  
• Choice of contracts

Sorry, Ben... your list is significantly deficient. I would add (and would personally use): do you hold the ♣Q?

Some might go further (as did one of the players involved in the original hand) and say, instead of 'do you have the Q?', 'do you have 3rd round control?'

Inmy view, as I explained in my first post, the 'do you have the Q?' question is often going to be more sensible than any of the others.

Your list:

1. specific king asking: most keycarders use specific king responses to 5N. Those who don't, probably should learn. We don't need 6♣ to ask for the K of ♣: we bid 5N. The only exception would be if we needed to know about the ♣K in order to choose between 6♥ and 6N... and couldn't risk 5N since partner is allowed to bid 7 with an unusual hand. But that has to be a narrow target, and not one to which I would give any priority at all.

2. to play. If we were hell-bent on 6♣, we should not have made slamming noises in ♥s! Surely, if our ♣ suit is that solid, we could have and should have bid differently? Even if 3♣ over 2♥ is non-forcing, as it is for many, 4♣ is forcing and shows the suit type that could insist upon 6♣ rather than 6♥. We denied AKQJxxx in ♣s by our 3♥ bid... more accurately, we denied a hand that wished to insist upon ♣s at the expense of ♥s.

3. choice of contracts: a 'correctable' suggestion to play. This one makes the most sense, in that it is possible to construct hands on which the disappointing discovery of the missing ♥Q may make it safer to play in ♣ IF opener has a partial fit, such as xx. The argument against this is primarily one of relative frequency/utility/reward.

If we consider that the two logical alternatives are pass/correct or do you have the ♣Q, then cue-bidding styles come into play. If you believe that opener should cue the ♣Q over 3♥, rather than the ♦A, then go no further... clearly there is no need for 'do you hold the ♣Q?', since the answer is already known to be 'no'.

If, on the other hand, with xx AJ10xxx AKx Qx, you'd bid 4♦ (as I would), then we have a compelling need to ask about the ♣Q holding a hand such as Ax KQx xx AKJ10xx: we can bid and claim 7N if he has that card... and how else can we find it?

The alternative, choice of slams, is a very narrow target: it presupposes that we have used keycard (rather than continue to describe our hand) and, after gettig nwhat cannot have been an unexpected response, we have discovered that 6♥ is relatively unattractive and we have a good enough ♣ suit to suggest that as an alternative strain and we will find that partner can and does make an accurate assessment of that suggestion..... that he passes 6♣ which then proceeds to make while 6♥ goes down. Now that is a very narrow target indeed.

Put another way: if the 5♥ response tells you that 6♥ fails, pass 5♥. If the 5♥ response tells you that 6♥s is an 'iffy' proposition, don't try to toss the coin and have it land on its edge by offering 6♣ as a spot. What if your AKQxxx opposite xx runs into a 4-1 trump break while 6♥ is cold? What if both contracts make and you lose imps by being in the minor? You are aiming at a low-frequency. small edge whereas my suggestion aims to reach an otherwise unreachable grand: low frequency, large edge.

[inquiry]

On this auction, I will never hold the club queen, as I cue-bid that after 3♥ if I had it.... as the hog and a few others.

I understand that there are a few different ways to cue-bid... ACEs before kings, or Aces and kings up the line, or Aces and kings up the line PLUS queen in partners known five + card suit. For me, 2♣ is 5+ suit, and I would cue-bid the queen if I had it in the up the line format.

No I did not bid this hand with Hannie.

My List of Bids wree quite specific to this auction where 4♦ denied Ace or King of spade, Ace, King or Queen of clubs. I use 5NT almost always as king asking bid. Here, it seems, well, unnecessary.

My answer was to try to gather in the logical options, given the rules laid out above for the possible holdings after teh 4♦ bid the way I play it. I understand not everyone follows teh same cue-bidding rules I do. If opener COULD have the club queen, then 6♣ simply has to ask for the third round control of clubs. I have no problem with that.

I agree choice of contracts is a very narrow target. I would prefer 6♣ to be to play instead of choice, and I think this is what I said. I only added that on some auctions you maybe able to mix-and-match a number of options if you want to set up specific bridge logic agreements.

[mikeh]

inquiry, on Feb 7 2007, 12:01 PM, said:

For me, 2♣ is 5+ suit, and I would cue-bid the queen if I had it in the up the line format.

I think that you would find yourself in a tiny minority in this view of 2♣.

With xx KQx Kxxx AKxx, your response to 1♥ is? I suspect that if you gave this hand to a panel of 2/1 experts, at least 90% would say 2♣... I would say 100% but experience suggests that it is foolhardy to predict a 100% vote for anything.

Indeed, make it xxx KQx Qxxx AKx, and I'd suspect a significant number of 2♣ bidders. It is far from clear to me that the suggestion about cue-bidding the Q in partner's 'suit' should apply to 2♣ responses to 1Major. I see its utility when the suit is known to be 5 cards, but otherwise it seems likely to be a retrograde step, especially if we are the only one possessing the control in the 'in-between suit'.

[inquiry]

mikeh, on Feb 7 2007, 12:42 PM, said:

inquiry, on Feb 7 2007, 12:01 PM, said:

For me, 2♣ is 5+ suit, and I would cue-bid the queen if I had it in the up the line format.

I think that you would find yourself in a tiny minority in this view of 2♣.

With xx KQx Kxxx AKxx, your response to 1♥ is? I suspect that if you gave this hand to a panel of 2/1 experts, at least 90% would say 2♣... I would say 100% but experience suggests that it is foolhardy to predict a 100% vote for anything.

Indeed, make it xxx KQx Qxxx AKx, and I'd suspect a significant number of 2♣ bidders. It is far from clear to me that the suggestion about cue-bidding the Q in partner's 'suit' should apply to 2♣ responses to 1Major. I see its utility when the suit is known to be 5 cards, but otherwise it seems likely to be a retrograde step, especially if we are the only one possessing the control in the 'in-between suit'.

With balanced hand and (12)13-15 hcp with 3 card support, I respond 3NT to one of major. I find showing a side five card suit before support too valuable to mix is 3 can 4 card 2 of a minor response followed by GF raise. So with your example hand, my response is 3NT as long as I don't decide to upgrade to "16" for some reason. If I did, I would respond 2NT (jacoby) despite only 3 card support. I prefer 2m to show 5 card suit.

[pclayton]

I understand the inference about Opener not holding the ♣Q. These are the same rules I use for cuebidding.

But whats so sacrosanct about the Q♣? Might responder need the Q or shortness? 6♣ asks for either.

Give responder: ♠Kx ♥KQxxx ♦A ♣AKxxx, and responder doesn't really care if opener has the Q or shortness, as long as its either.

[kenrexford]

This post is developing into a telling commentary on the state of bridge theory these days.

First, is the system 2/1 GF? This seems to be assumed.

Second, what is the style with regard to a 2/1 in clubs?

Third, what options did Responder have other than a simple 3♥ call? What options after 1♥-P-2♣-P-2♥, and what options after 1♥ directly that tailor the auction further?

Fourth, what inference was available from 4♦? Was 3NT serious or non-serious? Is LTTC used? What type of cuebidding was used?

Fifth, what options other than 4NT as RKCB were available? Would 5♣ be a cue, or an asking bid, or something else?

Sixth, are there any agreements as to 6♣, specifically, by inference, or by general rules for undiscussed auctions?

How on earth people from different schools and different tool groups can intelligently debate/discuss options and inferences is beyond me, proven herein.

I happen to have a unified theory here. I can, therefore, give an opinion as to what 6♣ would mean if all of the assumptions derived from all of my and partner's options are assumed, but that helps no one in assessing what 6♣ will mean in their blend of options, assumptions, rules, defaults, and the like. Anyone with any number of different assumptions, tools, default, and the like will "disagree" with the conclusion, accurately, as their set of parameters is different.

Quite an amazingly complicated concept this cuebidding is, eh?

[mike777]

Hannie, on Feb 6 2007, 02:18 PM, said:

Imagine a 2/1 auction like:

1H - 2C
2H - 3H
4D - 4NT
5H - 6C

5H showed 2 keycards without the queen. 6C can have two different meanings: It is either a try for 7 asking for a third round control, or it is a suggestion to play 6C. What should it be? Can you formulate a good general rule? If you play this as choice of strain, should opener often correct to 6H? Could you give a hand where it is close?

When a similar (but different) auction came up, the 6C bidder wanted to play there, opener jumped to 7H with xx in clubs, off the ace of hearts. Fortunately this was a practice bidding session.

Here is my simple approach.
1) 6clubs promises all the keys and shows the K of clubs and agrees hearts and is a grand slam try in hearts. I would add that responder bidding 4nt would lead me to believe they do not have a void in spades or diamonds.

They are looking for something, what I am not sure of at this point but I would bid 6D with the K of D or 7H with outside undislosed source of tricks.

I should add that for me 6H shows 6 hearts(99+) and does not deny extras.
I should add that for me 2clubs shows 14+ very often and that 3H is a slam try.

[kenrexford]

Oh yeah, I forgot to add in the possibility of Fast Arrival, Lawrence 2/1, Hardy 2/1, or some other variants thereof. LOL

[han]

The_Hog, on Feb 7 2007, 11:01 AM, said:

Ok Mike, I came to this post late. You are right in that the original poster did not suggest that possibility, and having read many of his posts before, I am surprised that this is not part of what he plays. However it makes sense to me and this is what it would mean in my partnerships. Yes, this has no bearing on the original post.

Very good Ron. I usually play serious 3NT, and we may cuebid a queen if partner has shown an honest suit. Whether this is the case here I don't find very interesting because I usually don't play 2C as a natural GF.

To respond to Apollo's comment, we do rebid 2H often with crappy 5-card suits, it does not suggest a good suit for us and 2NT really shows stoppers in the unbid suits. If the auction looks offensive to you then you can remove the spade jack and put it with the diamonds. Hopefully this makes 2H more reasonable.


There have been some interesting suggestions: Frances thinks that a blackwooder can never suggest an alternative strain, this makes a lot of sense if you use RKC very sporadically. Josh plays that a rebid of a first bid suit is always a suggestion to play there, I like this rule, I think I might be able to remember it. Others are more in the middle, Phil says that one can suggest a different strain but not if there has been a suit that has been bid and raised early in the auction.

I'm not convinced that 6C cannot logically be a suggestion to play there. Besides, tomorrow's auction will likely be slightly different so I prefer to have a clear rule. Maybe partner will completely agree about when 6C can be a suggestion and when it cannot, but I'd rather not risk it in the heat of battle.

[mike777]

ok since no one asked assuming a 2c is 100% game forcing why not just rebid 3c over whatever 2h means if you got long clubs?

[inquiry]

mike777, on Feb 7 2007, 07:15 PM, said:

ok since no one asked assuming a 2c is 100% game forcing why not just rebid 3c over whatever 2h means if you got long clubs?

Because when you support hearts later, it might not be "real support", and if you dont support hearts, it will be hard to use RKCB for hearts.

[mike777]

inquiry, on Feb 7 2007, 11:41 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 7 2007, 07:15 PM, said:

ok since no one asked assuming a 2c is 100% game forcing why not just rebid 3c over whatever 2h means if you got long clubs?

Because when you support hearts later, it might not be "real support", and if you dont support hearts, it will be hard to use RKCB for hearts.

ok so hearts are trump ...agreed.....clubs is grand slam try..not to play agree.

[000002]

i saw many good comment in this post,and i noticed all the great master seems ignore a detail.

i illustrate:

AK-----QJxx
Qxx----AKxxx
xx------Qxx or Kxx
AKQJxx--x

responder raise 3♥ to check ♦ control.
if he start from 3♣ rebid,then,1h-2c,2h-3c(2n),3nt-4c,4nt-?he has no ideal now.

i agree 6♣ is a generic grand seeking,but i agree that it's alternative slam too,it depend on our commentary now.

regards 000002

[Rebound]

Funny thing: three people with whom I play regularly, I believe, would each play it a different way, i.e. one of, to play, second place to play, and grand probe. They each have a slightly different style and my gut tells me they'd each choose a different meaning for the 6♣ call. But I guess that's just familiarity.