[mike777]

Hanoi5, on Feb 25 2009, 04:53 AM, said:

I thought this bid was intended as an asking bid in diamonds to try to play seven if partner held the ♦K or a singleton or another source of tricks in which to throw diamond losers.

You may be correct but this seems to be a very very wide judgement bid...on this exact auction. ....In fact 6d seems to be so wide as to be unplayable.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, BTW, just because it might have some relevance here, the question of whether the 6♦ or 6♥ calls show or ask for the "King" should be understood to mean a figurative King.

What I mean:

If, for example, asker in some other sequence has already shown that he has the diamond King (or has shown the Ace or King, which becomes clear when 5NT is bid), then 6♦ would typically show or ask for the Queen, and similarly for 6♥. Or, show or ask for "more stuff here" given prior cuebidding that may have occurred in other sequences.

That reality probably should be considered. Even if this sequence does not benefit from that nuance, a meta-agreement should maximize returns in the predictable range of likely recurring sequence types.

[brianshark]

I see no reason to suddently change who the captain of the auction is. Keycard bidder asks, responder tells.

[BillHiggin]

Since there is a book on RKC sequences, perhaps we should consider what it specifies. Kantar says that 5♦ is a 2nd King ask (about diamonds). His set of responses are (ignoring the ace):
Make a 1st step response, including 6NT, to show Kxx(x).
Make a 2nd step response to show Kx
Raise the ask suit to show KQ(x)

Note that the steps exclude 6 of the agreed suit which is needed as the "death bid".

[Apollo81]

asking for any of the diamond K/Q/shortness

[y66]

I looked this one up in Kantar's book also and in Washington Standard. Not that these guys have the last word, but they are experts after all and they both suggest playing 6D there (after specific king ask) as asking.

After a trump queen ask, 6m by asker asks for 3rd round control in m (queen or doubleton).

[Edmunte1]

Considering that 3♠ as an invitational hand, over 5NT (specific kings, looking for grand), responder holding 2 Kings, so a maximum hand (1kc+2kings) should have bid 7. So 5♦ should ask for 3rd round control in diamonds.

By the way, the 4NT bidder, is starting a series of inquiries (askings), followed by a final decision. He never makes an informative (showing) bid to an uninformed partner, unable to take the proper decision.

[jdonn]

Edmunte1, on Feb 25 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

Considering that 3♠ as an invitational hand, over 5NT (specific kings, looking for grand), responder holding 2 Kings, so a maximum hand (1kc+2kings) should have bid 7. So 5♦ should ask for 3rd round control in diamonds.

I disagree with that logic. Partner might need three or four tricks. For example opener could have KQJxxxx Ax Axx A. Two outside kings is not enough, but KQJx in a suit would be, so he bids 5NT just in case.

[Edmunte1]

jdonn, on Feb 25 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

Edmunte1, on Feb 25 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

Considering that 3♠ as an invitational hand, over 5NT (specific kings, looking for grand), responder holding 2 Kings, so a maximum hand (1kc+2kings) should have bid 7. So 5♦ should ask for 3rd round control in diamonds.

I disagree with that logic. Partner might need three or four tricks. For example opener could have KQJxxxx Ax Axx A. Two outside kings is not enough, but KQJx in a suit would be, so he bids 5NT just in case.

I disagree.

Holding the suggested hand (KQJxxxx Ax Axx A) North should have fake a queen of trump ask , followed by 5NT: 5♦-5♥-5♠ NO-5NT =partner we have all KC's but we need a lot of tricks (a source of tricks - 4 tricks)

Bidding a direct 5NT should be looking only for 3 tricks (example: KJxxxxx Ax AKx A)

[jdonn]

Edmunte1, on Feb 25 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 25 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

Edmunte1, on Feb 25 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

Considering that 3♠ as an invitational hand, over 5NT (specific kings, looking for grand), responder holding 2 Kings, so a maximum hand (1kc+2kings) should have bid 7. So 5♦ should ask for 3rd round control in diamonds.

I disagree with that logic. Partner might need three or four tricks. For example opener could have KQJxxxx Ax Axx A. Two outside kings is not enough, but KQJx in a suit would be, so he bids 5NT just in case.

I disagree.

Holding the suggested hand (KQJxxxx Ax Axx A) North should have fake a queen of trump ask , followed by 5NT: 5♦-5♥-5♠ NO-5NT =partner we have all KC's but we need a lot of tricks (a source of tricks - 4 tricks)

Bidding a direct 5NT should be looking only for 3 tricks (example: KJxxxxx Ax AKx A)

I've never heard of that treatment. I use the queen ask, denial, then 5NT bid as natural, saying "I have a ton of values and this contract should be safe, but if you have a good hand for your prior bidding we might make 6NT off a keycard and the trump queen." The way you are suggesting seems you might get screwed if partner has extra length and treats it as the queen. It also does nothing to help you on a similar auction where partner has one of our aces and makes a different keycard response. And do you ever bid 6 of the trump suit after the 6♣ response? What would that even mean if it can't be a hand that needs more than 2 tricks, the way you are playing?

I still think I'm right but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[sathyab]

BillHiggin, on Feb 25 2009, 10:02 AM, said:

Since there is a book on RKC sequences, perhaps we should consider what it specifies. Kantar says that 5♦ is a 2nd King ask (about diamonds). His set of responses are (ignoring the ace):
Make a 1st step response, including 6NT, to show Kxx(x).
Make a 2nd step response to show Kx   
Raise the ask suit to show KQ(x)

Note that the steps exclude 6 of the agreed suit which is needed as the "death bid".

You meant 6♦, I believe. And yes, if you were looking for something authoritative on RKC, you could do a lot worse than listen to Eddie Kantar

[keylime]

To me, this is showing the diamond king and interested in grand or 6NT. This sudden switching from asking to telling and back to asking leads to enough train wrecks.

I'm a keep it simple kind of guy when it comes to slam bidding.

[jvage]

I was very surprised to see the wide spread of meanings atributed to the 6♦ call. Even more so since no-one has mentioned what I believed was the standard expert treatment around here (Norway). I would definitely expect partner to be asking about third-round diamond control (Q or singleton/doubleton), an ideal hand would be something like AKxxxx, x, AKxx, Ax (assuming 3♠ showed 4+ we have 10+ spades and can ignore the ♠Q).

Much of the discussion focus on methods to find out about a second king. Here 1 ace + 2 kings would be a clear maximum, is it too "Rexfordian" (sorry Ken ) to assume that partner would have responded 6NT to 5NT with that? I expect we all agree that partner would bid 7♠ directly over 5NT with something like xxxx, xx, xx, AKQxx (a source of tricks)?

[kenrexford]

jvage, on Feb 26 2009, 05:12 AM, said:

I was very surprised to see the wide spread of meanings atributed to the 6♦ call. Even more so since no-one has mentioned what I believed was the standard expert treatment around here (Norway). I would definitely expect partner to be asking about third-round diamond control (Q or singleton/doubleton), an ideal hand would be something like AKxxxx, x, AKxx, Ax (assuming 3♠ showed 4+ we have 10+ spades and can ignore the ♠Q).

Much of the discussion focus on methods to find out about a second king. Here 1 ace + 2 kings would be a clear maximum, is it too "Rexfordian" (sorry Ken ) to assume that partner would have responded 6NT to 5NT with that? I expect we all agree that partner would bid 7♠ directly over 5NT with something like xxxx, xx, xx, AKQxx (a source of tricks)?

I suppose one huge possible question may not have been answered. I assumed that the 3♠ response was meant to be GF, for simplicity sake, and unlimited, to create a "pure" problem.

However, if 3♠ was a limit raise, then you are accurate, in that the 6♦ call would ask for whatever else is possible contextually. If another King is not contextually possible, but a Queen is, then 6♦ asks for the Queen. For that matter, if a Queen would not be possible, then maybe 6♦ asks for a doubleton.

This is similar to my comments regarding what 6♦ "asks" in the context of a prior cuebidding sequence (or shows). Same principle. But, you still do not necessarily get to whether 6♦ asks or shows, precisely. Except, you do provide yet another rationale, in a sense, for an asking approach, as it is really hard to work out what is important when Opener shows but Responder's depth of possibles changes.

[skjaeran]

For me 6♦ asks about a 3rd round diamond control.