[ralph23]

mike777, on Aug 1 2007, 03:20 PM, said:

...For me:
5nt=specific king ask
6c=shows k of clubs, asks for further cuebids...

♣♦♥♠

On the meaning of 6♣: If partner indeed has the AK of ♣ (we already know he has the Ace, as he would not be trying for a grand without us having all the keycards), and is bidding 6 of that suit to show the King of ♣....wouldn't it be more efficient for him to just bid 5NT asking for specific kings?

That will achieve the same result. Either way I will show my lowest ranking King.... i.e. both 5NT and 6♣ would initiate the same King-asking sequence, which seems inefficient.

Therefore allowing us to reserve the 6♣ call for e.g. "I need HELP in ♣, e.g. I have Ax of ♣, can you help me?"

I didn't express that very well, but hope the meaning is nevertheless reasonably clear.

[jdonn]

Since there seems to be general agreement about 5NT, the question is what are 6♣ and 6♦ (I'm not that worried about 6♥ since it is above 6♦ and since I can't imagine wanting to bid it anyway.) Two things seem obvious to me. One is that partner may be stuck into keycard for spades on a hand where he either wants to play diamonds, or doesn't know which suit to play in. The other is that it is dumb to use all these bids as unlikely grand slam tries, especially 6♣ which really can't be anything useful, when it's so obvious a choice of slams would be useful. I agree most with Justin's post about the meanings of the bids. I give no credence to a meaning for 6♦ that is not either a command or offer to play.

Anyway full hand. I passed 6♦ since to me it means partner wants to play 6♦ and if that's what I think he means I can't imagine ever overruling without 100% solid spades. He might have always been playing in diamonds, but merely bid keycard to improve his guessing odds (for example, he might be able to bid some grands if I had every missing keycard.) The full hand was (opponents' club honors approximated)

---

It looks weird by partner to never bid hearts, but he did a great thing since spades is clearly the best trump suit for slam. He didn't want to risk 6♣ and was hoping I would read 6♦ as a choice of slams instead of a command since from his perspective spades or diamonds could be right, but I really don't think that's what it means. Anyway, RHO led a heart, so all's well that ends well

[mike777]

ralph23, on Aug 2 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

mike777, on Aug 1 2007, 03:20 PM, said:

...For me:
5nt=specific king ask
6c=shows k of clubs, asks for further cuebids...

♣♦♥♠

On the meaning of 6♣: If partner indeed has the AK of ♣ (we already know he has the Ace, as he would not be trying for a grand without us having all the keycards), and is bidding 6 of that suit to show the King of ♣....wouldn't it be more efficient for him to just bid 5NT asking for specific kings?

That will achieve the same result. Either way I will show my lowest ranking King.... i.e. both 5NT and 6♣ would initiate the same King-asking sequence, which seems inefficient.

Therefore allowing us to reserve the 6♣ call for e.g. "I need HELP in ♣, e.g. I have Ax of ♣, can you help me?"

I didn't express that very well, but hope the meaning is nevertheless reasonably clear.

for me 5nt with spades as trumps....would be specific k ask.
Most of the time I expect the 5nt bid....partner skipping over 5nt and bidding 6clubs would be rare but possible.
6c= would be K of clubs showing. Perhaps my having the queen will be important.
We did have one recent auction that went something like:
1s=2nt!
3c!=3d!
4c!=4d
4h=4nt(rkc)
5c!=5d(Q ask)
5nt(Q of s, extras but no outside king)=6D(here partner showed K of D)
7D(Q of d)=7nt



One advantage of Kickback is that if some other suit is trumps we can do the specific K ask and showing at a lower levels. Again over 90% of the time we just start with specific K ask.......

I should add that for me specific K ask really is just saying......partner we got all the keys and the Q.......jump to 7 if you got alot of extra stuff if not just bid your specific kings up the line.....Often we just jump to 7 and do not bother to show specific kIngs.

[Fluffy]

Fluffy, on Aug 1 2007, 06:52 PM, said:

I'd say K-KQxx-AKQ109xx-x

uhhh so close hehe.

[keylime]

I'd like to ask a question of the panel here who believe 6♦ is an attempt to play here.

Considering that pard bid spades twice in this auction, and that we have keycarded in that suit, how can we then differentiate strain with regards to what contract we're trying to get to. Since we didn't introduce hearts into the mix here (there's another can of worms), and we didn't raise diamonds when we had the chance to, after the keycard ask and rebid, how are we certain that we have intentions to play in diamonds when pard can cuebid to probe further? If pard wanted to play in diamonds by implication, I'd think they would cuebid instead of asking about keycards in spades to focus the auction.

This example is analogous to the style that some play where 4NT is keycard for the last suit bid and then yanked to another suit intended it to play - and I'm not a fan of it because of the confusion that it causes. I've had enough RKCB accident with this treatment to pull hair out.

[jdonn]

keylime, on Aug 4 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

I'd like to ask a question of the panel here who believe 6♦ is an attempt to play here.

Considering that pard bid spades twice in this auction, and that we have keycarded in that suit, how can we then differentiate strain with regards to what contract we're trying to get to. Since we didn't introduce hearts into the mix here (there's another can of worms), and we didn't raise diamonds when we had the chance to, after the keycard ask and rebid, how are we certain that we have intentions to play in diamonds when pard can cuebid to probe further? If pard wanted to play in diamonds by implication, I'd think they would cuebid instead of asking about keycards in spades to focus the auction.

This example is analogous to the style that some play where 4NT is keycard for the last suit bid and then yanked to another suit intended it to play - and I'm not a fan of it because of the confusion that it causes. I've had enough RKCB accident with this treatment to pull hair out.

The problem is, if partner bids 5♣ over 4♠ (the only cuebid available) then that also sounds like it is agreeing spades. So if partner wants to play diamonds, are you saying the only possible bids are guessing between 5♦ and 6♦? It seems to me like if he bids keycard he has a much better chance of going right.
- We might have all the keycards, allowing him to bid 7.
- He might have the spade king himself, meaning he can tell how many aces we are missing.
- The spade king is probably important anyway since spades could be our source of tricks.
I just think it's too inflexible to not allow partner to ask for controls when he always wants to play in his suit. Or as on the actual hand, he doesn't know where to play (indeed, what would you have bid if you were him)?

I'm starting to think I have the opponents' hands wrong. I remember west as being 234 in spades/hearts/diamonds and east leading a singleton heart. Maybe he was 2344 and bid 2♣?

[ArtK78]

In my post back on the first page, I stated that one cannot use RKCB in one suit and then attempt to play in another suit.

I stand by that, and I believe that to attempt to do so is courting disaster, such as the disaster that should have occurred at the table on this hand.

So, to me, the 6D bid is not an attempt to suggest playing in diamonds - it is an asking bid in diamonds. The trump suit is spades.

[pclayton]

Josh I think this is an unlucky hand that turned well for you. You might be reading too much into the final result.

I think 4N is a practical call, since diamonds will be an adequate trump suit most of the time.

Whats wrong with 5N? I think 5N is better than 4N. Surely the North hand is good enough to insist on 6. 5N allows pard to show belated diamond support, secondary hearts or extra long spades. A grand is possible, and 4N caters to looking for 13 tricks, but I'd be more concerned about finding the right 6 than fishing for 7.

[cherdano]

ArtK78, on Aug 4 2007, 10:25 AM, said:

In my post back on the first page, I stated that one cannot use RKCB in one suit and then attempt to play in another suit.

I stand by that, and I believe that to attempt to do so is courting disaster, such as the disaster that should have occurred at the table on this hand.

So, to me, the 6D bid is not an attempt to suggest playing in diamonds - it is an asking bid in diamonds. The trump suit is spades.

No, not having agreements is what leads to disasters. I have the agreement with my regular partner that (except for some special situations) a 6-level bid suit in RKCB-askers' main suit is always a suggestion to play. I am not sure why you think this will lead to disasters.
It is not hard to come by examples where this is useful. E.g. change responder's hand to ♠K ♥KQxx ♦AKQJTx ♣Kx. If partner shows 3 + Q, you can bid 7N. If partner shows 3 without Q, you can bid 7♦. If partner shows 2+Q, you can bid 6♦ (protecting your ♣K). If you can't RKCB, it will be trick to find out what you need.
I have more sympathy for your rule in non-competitive auctions.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Aug 4 2007, 11:50 AM, said:

Josh I think this is an unlucky hand that turned well for you. You might be reading too much into the final result.

I think 4N is a practical call, since diamonds will be an adequate trump suit most of the time.

Whats wrong with 5N? I think 5N is better than 4N. Surely the North hand is good enough to insist on 6. 5N allows pard to show belated diamond support, secondary hearts or extra long spades. A grand is possible, and 4N caters to looking for 13 tricks, but I'd be more concerned about finding the right 6 than fishing for 7.

Not sure what you mean about reading into the final result, I know it was lucky lol. But despite reaching a contract with no play other than the wrong lead, I don't consider the way we reached that result a disaster. What I mean is partner had to guess anyway, and for all I know he would have guessed 6♦. He made a bid that he hoped would let me help him figure it out, and if I ended up guessing at the contract my guess might be as good as his would have been.

5NT is not a bad suggestion, but the problem isn't so much in finding 7, it's that I won't make the right decision. Am I really going to choose diamonds with xx when they are right instead of spades with AQxxxxx? Playing in spades then without the jack would be bad since they could make me ruff with the singleton king. After keycard I think I'm a lot more likely to get that right, since with the AQ of spades already shown I wouldn't feel that sort of suit has anything extra to recommend it.

I still ask anyone, if 4NT forces us to play in spades then what choices besides 5♦ or 6♦ does partner have if he wants to play in diamonds? Making these sort of restrictions just to allow for more grand slam tries that almost never come up is not bridge.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Aug 4 2007, 10:00 AM, said:

pclayton, on Aug 4 2007, 11:50 AM, said:

Josh I think this is an unlucky hand that turned well for you. You might be reading too much into the final result.

I think 4N is a practical call, since diamonds will be an adequate trump suit most of the time.

Whats wrong with 5N? I think 5N is better than 4N. Surely the North hand is good enough to insist on 6. 5N allows pard to show belated diamond support, secondary hearts or extra long spades. A grand is possible, and 4N caters to looking for 13 tricks, but I'd be more concerned about finding the right 6 than fishing for 7.

Not sure what you mean about reading into the final result, I know it was lucky lol. But despite reaching a contract with no play other than the wrong lead, I don't consider the way we reached that result a disaster. What I mean is partner had to guess anyway, and for all I know he would have guessed 6♦. He made a bid that he hoped would let me help him figure it out, and if I ended up guessing at the contract my guess might be as good as his would have been.

5NT is not a bad suggestion, but the problem isn't so much in finding 7, it's that I won't make the right decision. Am I really going to choose diamonds with xx when they are right instead of spades with AQxxxxx? Playing in spades then without the jack would be bad since they could make me ruff with the singleton king. After keycard I think I'm a lot more likely to get that right, since with the AQ of spades already shown I wouldn't feel that sort of suit has anything extra to recommend it.

I still ask anyone, if 4NT forces us to play in spades then what choices besides 5♦ or 6♦ does partner have if he wants to play in diamonds? Making these sort of restrictions just to allow for more grand slam tries that almost never come up is not bridge.

I meant that it was unlucky that pard placed the contract in diamonds and found you with a void.

I disagree about the prospects of finding our best fit; I think xx of diamonds is reasonable support - and seems just as important as a 7th spade. Surely you have a minimum of 6 for 4♠, but you haven't promised anything in diamonds.

Are you still implying that 6♦ shows some flexibility as to final strain?

[keylime]

My thought continuing: If I wanted to play in diamonds once I hear 4♠ which should show a nearly self-sufficient suit at worse case, I should cuebid (if available - with 2 dead clubs might be a case for <gulp> Lackwood here but I digress) if I had interest in diamonds. With a solid diamond suit with a stiff honor of opener's suit opposite, I'd probably give up grand chances and bid 5NT pick-a-slam and get on with it. My concern with 4NT being RKC for last suit bid, is if they keep bidding and now after our DEPO/DOPI response we're trying to get back out into ♦.

The 6H bid as a Last Train in spades is rather interesting, but how often would it come up for the sake of memory? Theorywise it makes sense but practicality wise I'm unsure of its ramifications; if opener rebid 4H (which I might do here instead of spades depending on partner) then the context changes.

I agree with Josh from the view that understanding the context is critical to getting to the end conclusion here. This is a very thought provoking hand indeed.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Aug 4 2007, 01:08 PM, said:

Are you still implying that 6♦ shows some flexibility as to final strain?

No, just refering to partner's intentions since he meant it that way.

I guess we will just agree to disagree about my bids if partner asked me by bidding 5NT. It seems to me like his diamonds would be something along the lines of AQxxxx for that. I still don't think it's a bad bid, given that nothing else is exactly garnering universal support.

[Fluffy]

jdonn, on Aug 4 2007, 06:00 PM, said:

I still ask anyone, if 4NT forces us to play in spades then what choices besides 5♦ or 6♦ does partner have if he wants to play in diamonds? Making these sort of restrictions just to allow for more grand slam tries that almost never come up is not bridge.

This depends on how do you answer 1 ace. Because if you do it with 5♣ then 4NT forces you to play in spades whenever 2 aces are missing. Hence 4NT suggests that 5♠ is a playable contract, and if 5♠ is playable, then 6♠ must be better than 6♦ with your hand.