[jillybean]

Dealer: West Vul: All Scoring: IMP

♠ J4 ♥ AQ9753 ♦ J9 ♣ A73

West North East South

 Pass  1NT   Pass  2♦
 Pass  3♥    Pass  4♣
 Pass  4♦    Pass  4NT
 Pass  5♣!   Pass  6♥
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

! 03keycards

Normal ??

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the bidding is ok.

Most likely you post it on the forum,
because your partner did hold only
0 key cards.
A slight improvement is 5H instead of 6H,
partner will always bid 6H, if he holds 3 KC.

It can be argue, that your partner should not
make the 4D cue without any key card, but than,
you may hold a stronger hand (with regards to
HCP), and you may be worried about a missing
control in spade or diamonds.
(Since your 4C cue, denied a spade control, the
4D also implies, that opener has also a spade cue.)

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

I'm not sure I'd press on to slam... hand has 7 losers and pard's superaccept expectancy is 5 cover cards, at best. Besides, those jacks are quite dubious values and there's a high risk of mirrored doubletons.

[pclayton]

This hand isnt as good as it looks. The QH is probably wasted and the Jx's arent carrying their full weight. 4C is OK but I would give pard the option of getting out with 4H.

4N is a mistake with Jx in the spade suit I think.

[mikeh]

I don't like the bidding.

Keycard when holding Jx in an unbid suit is very poor, especially when your auction tells the opps you control the other two side suits. You got lucky (assuming 6♥ made) because partner held 3 keycards. Give him 2 and you can't tell what to bid... assuming that you think that slam is in the picture.

More to the point: I agree with 4♣ because it is possible to construct hands on which slam is good. AQx J109x AKxx Kx is a 17 count on which we'd definitely want to be in slam.

But having made one slam try, and having heard 4♦, I'd content myself with 4♥. Partner knows I have a mild slam try with a club control.

With the example 3=4=4=2 hand, with 6 controls, he'd bid again over 4♥.

With KQx Kxxx Axx KQx, he'd probably pass, altho he might move if feeling aggressive... it's a fine contract on a non-diamond lead so it's an open question as to whether you'd want to bid it.

With Qxx KJxx AKxx Kx, he'd pass for sure.

I have often posted in these fora against the overuse of keycard, and this is another example of why I ride this hobbyhorse. If players learned more subtle ways of probing for slam, ways that involve trusting partner to work out what is going on, we'd reach more good slams and stay out of more bad ones. Bid 4♣ and then 4♥ and let partner decide whether, in context, his hand warrants another call. You and partner may get these wrong initially, but once you both learn to trust each other, your slam bidding will move to a higher level.

[jdonn]

I agree with the other keyboard monkeys, 4♣ is fine but then over 4♦ I would bid 4♥ because (in order of importance)
- My hand isn't good enough to do more
- I lack spade control

[hotShot]

If 4♣ and 4♦ showed first (or 2nd) round control it is usually not wise to use 4NT to ask for keycards. It is better to carry on bidding controls.

So instead of 4NT south should bid 4♥ because of the missing ♠ control. With ♠ control north has to make the next move.

[keylime]

I agree with the sentiments - you don't want to keycard with a suit wide open.

This hand also shows how important cuebidding styles are. Is 4♦ truly the A, or is it KQ, or the K? You have a reasonable hand in context, but you are concerned not only about the spade suit, but also you have a stale holding in clubs that needs help. That, and pard is already limited.

[han]

Completely agree with Josh.

[kenrexford]

A few unknowns cause great problems in the analysis.

1NT: It seems to be 15-17, but this is not mentioned.

2♦: I can work that one out. But, to nit-pick, the auction is consistent for Jacoby Transfers or for two-way Stayman

3♥: Assuming Jacoby, this is clearly a super-acceptance. However, I have no idea what 3H shows in your approach (as opposed to 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, or 3♦, for instance)

4♣: You have not indicated whether this cuebid (I assume cuebid) is Aces-first (saying nothing about spades) or Italian (denying a spade control). I have no idea whether 3NT would mean something, let alone what it would mean. If, for example, 3NT was serious, then 4♣ denied serious interest, which makes 4♦, whatever that means (see below), have more significance. If 3NT is frivolous, then 4♣ seems to be an overbid.

4♦: The more unanswered you have, the more complex the unanswereds get. 4♦ could be interpreted in many ways. However, my feeling is that the 4♦ call shows a spade control but denies a diamond control (LTTC). This seems strange, considering the response to 4NT. So, I am at a loss.

If this were my auction, with my definitions, I would have signed off. The bids would have meant as follows:

1NT: 14+ to 17-
2♦: transfer
3♥: super-acceptance without a good side suit (HHxx)
4♣: Non-serious/mild slam interest, with a club control, no spade control, and unknown diamond control
4♦: serious interest in slam, with a spade control but without a diamond control

Thus, 4♥ would be clearly indicated, as we expect two quick diamond losers.

The strange thing is that people are agreeing that the lack of a spade control is justifying the sign-off. My problem is the lack of a diamond control. Ain't this game grand!

[edit -- in retrospect, I have described what the bids would mean for me, but I would not bid it this way. Had opener super-accepted by bidding 3♣, I might cue 4♣, hoping for a golden hand like Axx-Kxxx-Axx-KQJx. The 3♥ super, however, would leave slam as, at best, on a finesse, whether in hearts or possibly opposite a lesser KJ10x in clubs.]

[Winstonm]

Keycard is wrong with the spade control unaccounted for - as others have said.
If you want to press matters a bit, you could bid 5H directly over 4D, specifically asking for a spade control for 6.

However, this hand is a bit too light for that. I'm with the others...4C and then 4H over the 4D bid.

[Impact]

A lot depends on your agreements but even opposite a superaccept (assuming 14-16/15-17 NT) it takes a pretty perfect hand to make slam a strong favourite (and that may be because one of your J is working).

Hands which do not hold shortage, require 2 running suits or perfect placement of controls to make 12 tricks when holding fewer than 29 HCP as a general rule.

I'm sure ken or someone will have commented on whether other superaccepts (and their meaning) was available.

The HQ is almost certainly wasted: to superaccept partner will usually hold 4+ cards or a perfect prime with 3 card (then Kxx).

Your Jx in the pointed suits will be working opposite strong Honour combination and length only. Probably one of those J is wasted.

This is a marginal slam invite at best - and then only assuming you have reasonable methods to allow opener to further evaluate his hand.

It only makes sense to look for slam if you have a good method for evaluation - and quite frankly Keycard to establish both location of Honours and sidestrength is NOT it.

One try with 4C is reasonable, if optimistic.

Most would use it as a cue but the basis of cue and methods thereafter is in the realm of the individual:-

generally I would use it as the lowest 1st or 2nd round control denying S control ; on that basis 4D from opener should promise both a S control and a D control since you were prepared to get to 5-level by making a slam try (4H would deny S control, and without D control but with S control bid next control). Note that this risks getting to the 5-level opposite a hand which lacks D control (2 losers) and may only hold SK so could be cold off eg KQx KJxx Qxx KQJx which doesn't look like much of a superaccept to me even if you are just a pointcounter, but perhaps KQx KJx Qx KQJxx is closer!!! Realistically a superaccept should be a hand which is better than the top NT pointcount for the particular suit and hence is a hand which responder should not play you for or envisage when evaluating whether to invite. IMHO neither of the above hands qualifies as a superaccept despite the pointcount and trump support as the controls are lacking and they are relatively normal hands for H. By contrast a hand like Kx KQx xxx AKJxx or in this context Kx KJx AKQxx xxx is a GREAT hand opposite long H and far too good to be called 15-17 now...

In any event, you do NOT have enough to bid above game yourself and should content yourself with 4H: the mildest of slam tries despite the good cards shown by partner: he will now know he needs great cards to continue - presumably a source of tricks.

In very old-fashioned cue-bidding where you just bid your lowest A, you have bid your all (and partner knows less about what is needed) and I don't see how you can locate the information you need.
regards,

[cherdano]

I wouldn't bid 4♣, I think slam can only be good when opener has a doubleton club. There are many hands where opener would for to clam over 4C 4D 4H and slam has no play (Axx Kxxx Ax kqx etc)
4N is a clear mistake though. (Assuming that 4♣ is a cuebid and that you are playing 1st or 2nd round control bids, I don't understand all this flak about the missing spade control, 4♦ should imply one.)

[ralph23]

kenrexford, on Oct 9 2007, 09:28 PM, said:

3♥: Assuming Jacoby, this is clearly a super-acceptance. However, I have no idea what 3H shows in your approach (as opposed to 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, or 3♦, for instance)

How do people play these bids (2♠, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦ and 3♥) in their super-acceptance scheme?

I just re-worked ours after I saw a presentation at the club and am curious how others play these bids. Maybe a more refined super-acceptance scheme in the auction at hand would have helped clarify the (imo, rather poor) slam chances.

[helene_t]

ralph23, on Oct 10 2007, 03:00 PM, said:

How do people play these bids (2♠, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦ and 3♥) in their super-acceptance scheme?

This has been discussed a.o. here.

[Fluffy]

I mildly agree with Han

[helene_t]

Assuming BBF discussions are transitive (Richard may disagree), Gonzalo agrees with Josh.

[mr1303]

4C is an overbid with unsupported jacks. Having said that:

The spade control is not necessary, since you've already denied a spade control by bidding 4C. Partner must have one to bid 4D.

[kenrexford]

Why are so many people pronouncing with absolutes what 4♣ says about spades without acknowledging that the post provider seems to have still never defined whether the cuebidding is aces-first or Italian? LOL