[jillybean]

Scoring: MP

(P) 1♠ (P) 2♣*
(P) 2♦ (P) 3♦

---

*2♣ is artificial, game forcing, could be short, denies 5♦, partner would have bid 2♠ with 3card support on second bid.

You have the following conventions at your disposal; minorwood,

Spoiler

rkc1430

, exclusion kc and cue budding.

[jjbrr]

4♥ splinter. I need partner to have ♠ and ♣ cards for slam i think.

[kfay]

jillybean, on Jun 11 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

minorwood, rkc1430

FWIW I think these bids should be mutually exclusive

[kenrexford]

3♥ seems calculated to get a spade cue, as long as shortness cues are allowed.

[jillybean]

kfay, on Jun 11 2010, 07:10 AM, said:

jillybean, on Jun 11 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

minorwood, rkc1430

FWIW I think these bids should be mutually exclusive

good point

[jjbrr]

kenrexford, on Jun 11 2010, 08:14 AM, said:

3♥ seems calculated to get a spade cue, as long as shortness cues are allowed.

I think 3♥ will fetch a 3NT bid a huge amount of the time.

[hrothgar]

Hi Kathryn

Are you completely sure that you've resolved strain?

I'd hate to end up going down in a 4-3 Diamond fit when we had a 5-4 club fit available.

[jillybean]

Hi Richard, if partner had 5♣ and 3♦ he would bid 3♣/3♦, it is possible he is xx45

[mikeh]

3♥ seems bizarre to me. It is commonly played as a probe for 3N. It can be done on hands with great strength, that intend to pull 3N, thus retroactively revealing 3♥ to have been a cue. But this hand is not that hand.

And over 3♥, 3♠ by partner would be played by virtually every good player (absent specialized methods) as denying the ability or desire to bid 3N and promising some spade support...in context, likely Hx.

So: 3♥ is out. 3♠ is 6 spades. 3N is silly.

4♣ is possible...let's get back to that if need be.

4♦ is minorwood, and I hate the gadget...why not use kickback and thus be able to bid 4♥ if we want to keycard (4N can be a heart splinter)?

Anyway, we can't use minorwood since we won't know what to do if there is a keycard missing.

4♥: is this the exclusion mentioned in the OP? Even if it were, how can we possibly know what to do over any response? This hand can't place the contract merely on knowing how many keycards we hold outside the heart suit.

Ok...we are back to 4♣. I was always thinking that would be the call, and now I am sure of it....until someone explains why it is second (or third or....) best.

[kenrexford]

4♥, if Exclusion, is OK, but I don't see how 3♥ goes wrong. It is either a probe or a cue. If a probe, and partner declines 3NT, then he does not have the heart Ace, and you do not need exclusion -- hearts is already excluded. If he bids 3♠, you have more info. Whatever happens, surely the next call of RKCB for diamonds will be clear. So, whatever 3♥ will be seen as, all things partner can do seem good.

[jjbrr]

3NT does not seem good...

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Jun 11 2010, 10:38 AM, said:

4♥, if Exclusion, is OK, but I don't see how 3♥ goes wrong.  It is either a probe or a cue.  If a probe, and partner declines 3NT, then he does not have the heart Ace, and you do not need exclusion -- hearts is already excluded.  If he bids 3♠, you have more info.  Whatever happens, surely the next call of RKCB for diamonds will be clear.  So, whatever 3♥ will be seen as, all things partner can do seem good.

It's not quite that simple, Ken.

Firstly, the meaning of 3♥, as a probe, may not be what you seem to think: asking for a stopper. Certainly, from a traditional p.o.v., it suggests heart values and thus invites 3N if partner stops clubs and has an otherwise suitable hand.

Obviously, when there are two unbid suits and only one of them is biddable below 3N one could argue that one should ask rather than tell about values, but this seems to be a six of one and half a dozen of the other type of debate. While many traditional approaches have been seen to be historical accidents and second best, this sequence doesn't seem to be misdirected (compare standard and udca methods, as a comparison: even die hard standard signallers will usually admit that udca is slightly better in theory)

So when partner doesn't bid 3N over 3♥, he is neither showing nor denying a heart stopper.

Even if he played your way, 3N wouldn't show or deny the heart Ace...he'd bid 3N with QJx Q10xx J10xx etc.

And he may have the requisite stopper (be it hearts as for you or clubs as for me and, I suspect, the majority of the expert community) and still not bid 3N, since he is unlimited and may not want to play 3N. Now, if he bids beyond 3N, it is very unlikely that you will ever be able to convince him that your 3♥ two-way bid (probe or cue) was based on a void. In fact, it will be impossible, imo, to do so if 3♥ indicated, when a probe, values.

And to suggest that we can keycard in diamonds over 3♠ is very weird. I hope that you see that partner's refusal to bid 3N need not say anything about the heart Ace, so you can't infer that his response to keycard is, effectively, a response to exclusion. Moreover, as I commented in my first post, one should not keycard when one doesn't know what to do merely based on the number of keycards. You don't learn enough from 3♠ to know what to do.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jun 11 2010, 11:06 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 11 2010, 10:38 AM, said:

4♥, if Exclusion, is OK, but I don't see how 3♥ goes wrong.  It is either a probe or a cue.  If a probe, and partner declines 3NT, then he does not have the heart Ace, and you do not need exclusion -- hearts is already excluded.  If he bids 3♠, you have more info.  Whatever happens, surely the next call of RKCB for diamonds will be clear.  So, whatever 3♥ will be seen as, all things partner can do seem good.

It's not quite that simple, Ken.

Firstly, the meaning of 3♥, as a probe, may not be what you seem to think: asking for a stopper. Certainly, from a traditional p.o.v., it suggests heart values and thus invites 3N if partner stops clubs and has an otherwise suitable hand.

Obviously, when there are two unbid suits and only one of them is biddable below 3N one could argue that one should ask rather than tell about values, but this seems to be a six of one and half a dozen of the other type of debate. While many traditional approaches have been seen to be historical accidents and second best, this sequence doesn't seem to be misdirected (compare standard and udca methods, as a comparison: even die hard standard signallers will usually admit that udca is slightly better in theory)

So when partner doesn't bid 3N over 3♥, he is neither showing nor denying a heart stopper.

Even if he played your way, 3N wouldn't show or deny the heart Ace...he'd bid 3N with QJx Q10xx J10xx etc.

And he may have the requisite stopper (be it hearts as for you or clubs as for me and, I suspect, the majority of the expert community) and still not bid 3N, since he is unlimited and may not want to play 3N. Now, if he bids beyond 3N, it is very unlikely that you will ever be able to convince him that your 3♥ two-way bid (probe or cue) was based on a void. In fact, it will be impossible, imo, to do so if 3♥ indicated, when a probe, values.

And to suggest that we can keycard in diamonds over 3♠ is very weird. I hope that you see that partner's refusal to bid 3N need not say anything about the heart Ace, so you can't infer that his response to keycard is, effectively, a response to exclusion. Moreover, as I commented in my first post, one should not keycard when one doesn't know what to do merely based on the number of keycards. You don't learn enough from 3♠ to know what to do.

Obviously it is not that simple, but one a more general basis I'm not understanding what in the world you are smoking.

When partner bids 3♦, partner has four diamonds and not three spades. He also does not have five hearts. So, he has at most 2443 pattern, which means that the club call has been purified, at least somewhat. Hence, 3♥ is an unambiguous call if a probe -- I need a heart control. All of this theory on unbids and bids must derive from a lack of understanding of the 2♣ call.

Second, when partner bids 3♠ in this sequence, he has a spade card. That's easy, because he will assume a cue if he rejects notrump, if he knows how to bid. This is because diamonds are agreed.

Third, if partner has a hand where he holds the heart Ace but doesn't show it because he is too strong, great! We probably have a grand.

Fourth, partner "won't read 3♥ as a void" only if you play that a 3♥ cue cannot be a void. If it can, then he will read 3♥ as possibly a void.

Fifth, you don't need Exclusion when using RKCB and partner has denied a control in your void suit. So, who cares if he knows or doesn't know whether you have a void -- you are taking control.

Sixth, if partner bids 3NT, you obviously don't know whether he has the Ace of hearts. So? You can now bid 4♥ as Exclusion RKCB for diamonds, assuming that 4♦ is the agreed RKCB, as stated. If you don't know that, then you need to discuss this sequence.

Seventh -- how is this a problem in asking for key cards? If 4NT was RKCB, there might be ambiguity, but that's why the agreements described are played -- to remove the ambiguity. Again, a problem for you that the original post has a solution for does not become a problem because you don't use that solution for the problem.

[jillybean]

mikeh, on Jun 11 2010, 08:21 AM, said:

[snip]
4♦ is minorwood, and I hate the gadget...why not use kickback and thus be able to bid 4♥ if we want to keycard (4N can be a heart splinter)?

Anyway, we can't use minorwood since we won't know what to do if there is a keycard missing.

4♥: is this the exclusion mentioned in the OP? Even if it were, how can we possibly know what to do over any response? This hand can't place the contract merely on knowing how many keycards we hold outside the heart suit.

Yes, 4♥ would be exclusion here.
This will make you cringe, I have minorwood, rkc, exclusion AND kickback on my card at the moment. I am using minorwood when there is a suit agreement below the 4 level. For majors and minors 4level+ I am using kickback. I see we have some duplication and need to do some rework.

[mike777]

jillybean, on Jun 11 2010, 03:28 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jun 11 2010, 08:21 AM, said:

[snip]
4♦ is minorwood, and I hate the gadget...why not use kickback and thus be able to bid 4♥ if we want to keycard (4N can be a heart splinter)?

Anyway, we can't use minorwood since we won't know what to do if there is a keycard missing.

4♥: is this the exclusion mentioned in the OP? Even if it were, how can we possibly know what to do over any response? This hand can't place the contract merely on knowing how many keycards we hold outside the heart suit.

Yes, 4♥ would be exclusion here.
This will make you cringe, I have minorwood, rkc, exclusion AND kickback on my card at the moment. I am using minorwood when there is a suit agreement below the 4 level. For majors and minors 4level+ I am using kickback. I see we have some duplication and need to do some rework.

fwiw strongly prefer kickback and that you play kickback only.

You can later add exclusion once you got all the kickback stuff down. Hands you can properly, not over use, Exclusion on are pretty rare anyway.


Granted this is not a b/i convention and will take alot of practice and discussion regarding touching suit auctions and what does 4nt mean and when.....
----


Example on the given auction over 3d.......4h would be kickback.....5h would be exclusion. Of course with a void on this auction opener should not jump to kickback.

btw 4nt over 3d would show the h void...agree d. I am not suggesting that is your best bid at that point, just pointing out what 4nt would mean.

[Phil]

I have something of a disdain for this auction. Playing 2C as 'short' is fine, as long as you have intelligent followups. At this point, I have no idea if pard is 2443, 1444 or a hand with 'real clubs'.

Personally, I think with phony clubs the right call is 2N over diamonds to clarify. On the actualy hand you can pattern with 3♣ which is a great description. Or you have to play something artificial and let responder run the show. At a few times I played transfers by opener. That way, responder has an inexpensive way to agree trump.

Playing a natural 2N response solves a lot of these problems and opener has a simple 3♥ splinter over 2♣ since 2♣ is 'never' short.

Some of the continuations in this thread are pretty absurd especially 3♥.

[MinorKid]

I vote 4♣ on a descriptive approach

It's time to show your clubs. It's better to bid control with honors rather than let partner to guess between an ace (king) or a void (singleton), which is a siginificant difference between partner's "good" and "bad" holding.

It's the clubs that matters.


Some may argue if we put the "3NT" off our mind, then partner will treat 3♥ as an control...whatever it is. However, the point i am concerning is the potential of a double-fit, where both suits are mutually established to provide many tricks from runs, discards, and ruffs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGGRASIVE APPROACH : 3♥ TRIAL
RESPOND 3♠ = ♠ Kx or ♠ x or ♠ - --->
RESPOND 3NT = ♣ values --->
ELSE

[jdonn]

If you are responding 2♣ on 3 (or 2) card suits on certain hands, which I am all for, then you can't raise diamonds if your club response was short. Rebid 2NT (or 2♠ if you have support) and if you have the values for slam or get the chance later go back to diamonds. The direct diamond raise should promise real clubs.

[MinorKid]

I knew bids like:
1♣ 1♦
2♦ 3♣

where the last bid is not a cue but also a support.
Are there any difference between above and below?
1♠ 2♣ *natural
2♦ 3♦
4♣