[kfay]

Scoring: IMP

1♠-2♦
3♣-3♠
4♣-4♦
4♠-4N
5♥-5N
6♣-?

---

Partner opens. 3♣ shows 'extras' which means he doesn't have a bare minimum.

4♣ is just a cuebid. Doesn't promise extra length. But you do play frivilous 3NT so it shows that partner is interested in slam. You opt to mess around with 4♦, please LOL or something.

5♥ shows 2 keycards, no ♠Q . What do you do now?

If you bid 5NT, partner shows the ♣K. Now what?

[P_Marlowe]

6D, asking about the king of diamonds.

Maybe partner wakes up, and showes the king,
if he looks at bare Ace, maybe not.

Of course 6D gives the show away, but it was not
my idea to bid 4D ...

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Fluffy]

I bid 6♥ showing the heart king .

Partner did show ♣KQ. Partner already KNOWS that we KNOW he has ♣K.

Partner would bid 7 if he had solid clubs and a red King. So I hope ♣J is missing or grand is impossible.


EDIT: WTF? we already shown ♦K to partner lol, how is he going to make an intelligent decision here?. It is completelly impossible, whatever we do, it must be 6 or 7 spades, don't let partner make a decision when he is deceived. I bet 6♠.

[Phil]

Really hate 4♦ Kev. You might as well bid 4N over 4♣, since pard can't key card over 4♦. This is the type of hand that should be answering key cards, not asking.

I'm bidding 7♠. 3♣ should not be bid on AJxxx, xx, Ax, KQxx in my book.

[Fluffy]

mm Phil is right, even if partner has stiff ♦A and only 4 clubs, good breaks allow for a cross ruff or a dummy reversal. 7 spades better.

[mikeh]

There is a lot of meat on this bone.

What did 4♣ show? To me, it is confirming a 5 card suit.. it is not cue-bidding yet.

Why did we bid 4♦? I don't understand that call, at all.

If we choose to look for the diamond King over 6♣, do we do it by bidding 6♦ or 6♥? Note that the 2 red suit bidders so far have opposite ideas.

I opt for the grand, since opposite as little as Axxxx x Ax KQxxx it has play... cold on 4-3 clubs and 3-2 trumps, and he could easily be AJ10xx x Ax KQxxx.

BTW, I would have bid 4♥ and hoped partner would be able to take control, but if he signed off in 4♠, I would have cued 5♣ and over the 5♦ cue, 5♥ and then raised 5♠ (which I very much doubt he would bid) to slam or bid grand over 5N.. which would have been one of those rare GSF bids... I prefer 5N to usually mean pick a slam, but on this auction there could be no possibility of any other denomination.

PS: if his clubs are weaker than KQxxx, then he should/must have good trump spots or the ♦K. AJ10xx Q AJ Kxxxx is still not a bad contract.

[Apollo81]

Partner's most likely shape is 5-2-1-5 (else he may have bid the hand differently) and we know he has ♠A, ♦A, and ♣K. That's enough for me to gamble on the grand.

[gnasher]

I don't really understand a style where 6♣ shows ♣K, a card which I already knew partner had, and which partner already knew I knew he had. Nor do I think that bidding or bypassing 6♦ asks partner for a card that I have already announced is in my hand.

If I were writing the explanations, 6♣ would show ♣Q, and any diamond bids would relate to the 3rd round of diamonds.

If I now bid 6♦, that should show ♦KQ. It's hard to construct a hand where I have that and don't bid a grand slam. Perhaps something like KQx Axx KQxx Axx, fishing for a black-suit jack, or more likely a hand where I know I'm bidding seven but I'm trying to find out if we belong in 7NT.

Similarly, if I bid 6♥, that will deny ♦Q and show ♥K. Again, that would suggest concern about fourth-round black-suit losers.

[Fluffy]

gnasher, on Feb 23 2009, 11:08 PM, said:

I don't really understand a style where 6♣ shows ♣K, a card which I already knew partner had, and which partner already knew I knew he had. Nor do I think that bidding or bypassing 6♦ asks partner for a card that I have already announced is in my hand.

If I were writing the explanations, 6♣ would show ♣Q, and any diamond bids would relate to the 3rd round of diamonds.

If I now bid 6♦, that should show ♦KQ. It's hard to construct a hand where I have that and don't bid a grand slam. Perhaps something like KQx Axx KQxx Axx, fishing for a black-suit jack, or more likely a hand where I know I'm bidding seven but I'm trying to find out if we belong in 7NT.

Similarly, if I bid 6♥, that will deny ♦Q and show ♥K. Again, that would suggest concern about fourth-round black-suit losers.

What happens if partner knows we don't have the king of diamonds? LOL. Maybe he is playing on te assumption that we missorted our hand somehow

[Hanoi5]

7♠. 3♣ should show a King more than opening or an equivalent hand:

♠AJxxx
♥xx
♦A
♣KJxxx

This is the minimum I'd expect.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Feb 23 2009, 06:08 PM, said:

I don't really understand a style where 6♣ shows ♣K, a card which I already knew partner had, and which partner already knew I knew he had. Nor do I think that bidding or bypassing 6♦ asks partner for a card that I have already announced is in my hand.

If I were writing the explanations, 6♣ would show ♣Q, and any diamond bids would relate to the 3rd round of diamonds.

If I now bid 6♦, that should show ♦KQ. It's hard to construct a hand where I have that and don't bid a grand slam. Perhaps something like KQx Axx KQxx Axx, fishing for a black-suit jack, or more likely a hand where I know I'm bidding seven but I'm trying to find out if we belong in 7NT.

Similarly, if I bid 6♥, that will deny ♦Q and show ♥K. Again, that would suggest concern about fourth-round black-suit losers.

Good analysis here, as far as the club call is concerned. Personally, I would take it even further, as a 4♣ call for me shows two of the top three clubs, known here to be KQ and known to be known by virtue of the 5NT call, as you observed. Hence, 6♣ for me would be a trick source statement. If 4♣ was just a control, then 6♣ surely shows KQ, for the reasons you cite.

As for the diamond situation, however, I think you are missing the logic somewhat. Because I lack the diamond Ace but bid 5NT, partner is looking at the diamond Ace and knows that my 4♦ call showed the diamond King. Of course, I do not have that card.

So, partner should be wildly confused at this point, unless he lacks the diamond King. If he was sitting there with the diamond Ace and King, and heard 4♦ by me, and then 4NT, he's not paying any more attention because he knows that this sequence is impossible. So, the mere fact that his head has not exploded means that he does not have the diamond King. As to what 6♦ shows? Got me. I suppose KQ makes sense if 4♦ just showed the King, but these calls usually ask by asker, so I'd expect that Responder does not have the diamond Queen for this call. However, for partner, if he has the magic diamond King, how confused will he be, looking at the Ace and King but not the Queen, hearing a request for the Queen, by a partner who earlier cuebid diamonds?

Bottom line, then, is that your analysis seems dead on, but you failed to mention adequately how loud the head explosion should be.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Feb 24 2009, 01:28 AM, said:

As for the diamond situation, however, I think you are missing the logic somewhat. Because I lack the diamond Ace but bid 5NT, partner is looking at the diamond Ace and knows that my 4♦ call showed the diamond King. Of course, I do not have that card.

Which part of that do you think I'd missed?

[dicklont]

I like the concept of cue in a suit without ace or king, but there has to be a reason for it.

When you can talk the opps out of leading ♦ (you should cue it twice, to show your "void") you need another suit with a lot of tricks to discard partners diamonds. Or partner must have a running suit to discard your own diamonds losers.

It won´t happen here, you´ve got yourself in trouble and partner won´t be pleased.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Feb 24 2009, 02:59 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Feb 24 2009, 01:28 AM, said:

As for the diamond situation, however, I think you are missing the logic somewhat.  Because I lack the diamond Ace but bid 5NT, partner is looking at the diamond Ace and knows that my 4♦ call showed the diamond King.  Of course, I do not have that card.

Which part of that do you think I'd missed?

I was joking. But, the part that you missed was the "wtp" or otgher derogatory comment. LOL

[sathyab]

gnasher, on Feb 23 2009, 06:08 PM, said:

I don't really understand a style where 6♣ shows ♣K, a card which I already knew partner had, and which partner already knew I knew he had.  Nor do I think that bidding or bypassing 6♦ asks partner for a card that I have already announced is in my hand.

If I were writing the explanations, 6♣ would show ♣Q, and any diamond bids would relate to the 3rd round of diamonds.

If I now bid 6♦, that should show ♦KQ.  It's hard to construct a hand where I have that and don't bid a grand slam.  Perhaps something like KQx Axx KQxx Axx, fishing for a black-suit jack, or more likely a hand where I know I'm bidding seven but I'm trying to find out if we belong in 7NT.

Similarly, if I bid 6♥, that will deny ♦Q and show ♥K.  Again, that would suggest concern about fourth-round black-suit losers.

There're other situations where there's duplication between controls shown by cue-bidding
below game and information you gather from conventional responses to RKC and follow-up bids. In such situations are you advocating i) that the conventional responses be modified to not duplicate information that's already known OR ii) some kind of a spiral scan scheme which can avoid asking for information that's already known but usually at the expense of skipping a precious level of bidding OR iii) avoiding conventional bids altogether and continue cue-bidding until you jointly figure that the limit of the two hands has been reached ?

[maggieb]

How about (i) reading his post before you (ii) ask for the obvious?

[gnasher]

sathyab, on Feb 24 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

There're other situations where there's duplication between controls shown by cue-bidding
below game and information you gather from conventional responses to RKC and follow-up bids. In such situations are you advocating i) that the conventional responses be modified to not duplicate information that's already known OR ii) some kind of a spiral scan scheme which can avoid asking for information that's already known but usually at the expense of skipping a precious level of bidding OR iii) avoiding conventional bids altogether and continue cue-bidding until you jointly figure that the limit of the two hands has been reached ?

I'm suggesting that essentially natural bids should remain natural, but convey new information.

If we already know about ♣K, a 6♣ bid that would normally say "I have the king of clubs" would now say "I have the queen of clubs".

If we already know about ♦K, a 6♦ bid that would normally say "I have the king of diamonds" would now say "I have the queen of diamonds". Or, if you play it this way, a 6♦ bid that would normally ask "Do you have ♦K?" would instead ask "Do you have ♦Q?"

[Fluffy]

gnasher, what do you suggest we bid if parnter asked us about ♦Q? sorry, just joking.

[sathyab]

gnasher, on Feb 24 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

sathyab, on Feb 24 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

There're other situations where there's duplication between controls shown by cue-bidding
below game and information you gather from conventional responses to RKC and follow-up bids. In such situations are you advocating i) that the conventional responses be modified to not duplicate information that's already known OR ii) some kind of a spiral scan scheme which can avoid asking for information that's already known but usually at the expense of skipping a precious level of bidding OR iii) avoiding conventional bids altogether and continue cue-bidding until you jointly figure that the limit of the two hands has been reached ?

I'm suggesting that essentially natural bids should remain natural, but convey new information.

If we already know about ♣K, a 6♣ bid that would normally say "I have the king of clubs" would now say "I have the queen of clubs".

If we already know about ♦K, a 6♦ bid that would normally say "I have the king of diamonds" would now say "I have the queen of diamonds". Or, if you play it this way, a 6♦ bid that would normally ask "Do you have ♦K?" would instead ask "Do you have ♦Q?"

Thanks for the clarification. What prompted me to seek the clarification was the use of the word "style" in your follow-up. The problem here is due to the structure of RKC and follow-up bids following a series of cue-bids, rather than anything specific to a particular style. If you substitute responder's 4♦ by 4♥, then anyone initiating RKC over partner's 4♠ will wind up with the same problem of hearing the wasteful 6♣ response and wondering how best to proceed next. Your idea that the meaning of the natural response to the conventional 5nt bid be different in light of prior cue-bidding, is an interesting one, but not mainstream. For instance, Eddie Kantar has not made any mention of it all, but does suggest the use of SSA (Specific Suit Ask) following the responser to RKC, which requires you to skip a queen-asking bid when relevant for instance.