[Free]

The question is: is RKCB the same as RKBW?

[ArcLight]

Free, of course RKCB = RKCBW. People use abbreviations all the time. And I did check with pard before we started playing.


>a. he doesnt play 5 aces, he play only 4 aces with answers 14 03 2

That would be Blackwood, not Roman Keycard Blackwood, which he hard on his profile, and agreed to use when I asked him.

>b. more likely today, he plays 5 aces but in the specific squence it wasnt clear that the K which you thought he considered as an ace should be considered as one.

I dont remember the exact bidding sequence, but trust me, it was obvious which the trump suit was.

I'll add I did not berate pard, I just said something like "P, I guess we had a mixup, I thought your response showed 1 keycard" then
"What did you intend it to mean?"

[Free]

Yes arklight, but do you see a "C" in "RKBW"? I know it should be the same, but some people play other blackwoods (like 4 Ace blackwood showing trump K with 2) and give it a wrong name...

[Flame]

ArcLight, on Dec 29 2004, 08:40 AM, said:

>b. more likely today, he plays 5 aces but in the specific squence it wasnt clear that the K which you thought he considered as an ace should be considered as one.

I dont remember the exact bidding sequence, but trust me, it was obvious which the trump suit was.

I'll add I did not berate pard, I just said something like "P, I guess we had a mixup, I thought your response showed 1 keycard"  then
"What did you intend it to mean?"

Well there is just nothing to teach or learn here, its just too odd that someone who play rckb the way we do (and most today do) will not know that the K of trump is an ace, so i would assume something else, and therefore the word lecture doesnt fit here. Its like saying someone play 5 cards major and doesnt know what are the majors
And dont be so sure the trump was clear, many times its not clear and this is one of those hard things to agree apon. Ill give you the simplest example:
1S-4nt
is it clear ? No many play this as asking for 4 aces and not 5.

[pbleighton]

In a recent tournament, my pd alerted my 5H response to 4NT as "two without the queen". Opps later criticized the alert as not specifying that it was two key cards, not two aces.

Who knew?

Peter

[whereagles]

jillybean2, on Dec 26 2004, 06:37 AM, said:

IMO, best to remain silent unless advice is solicited

Yes. Only reply/comment on something if asked to.

[epeeist]

ArcLight, on Dec 28 2004, 03:31 PM, said:

Ex. Pard has RKBW 1430 on his card, I explicityly say ok to that. Then when I bid 4NT he responds 5♣ with 2 Keycards. He didn't really know the convention.
So I ask "P, did I misinterpret your 5♣ response? I thought it showed 1 Keycard so I bailed out in 5♥" and leave it at that. No further comments from me. (he didn't realize the trump K counted as a Keycard)

I tend to agree with you and disagree with Flame. In a tournament, what about the duty to (correctly and properly) alert opponents, and in some tournaments, post a convention card? If your partnership's bidding doesn't match what you've told your opponents your system is, you are misinforming them (a mistake, fine; but if you know your partner is prone to make mistakes, that's UI, just like knowing your partner is prone to psyche frequently and not telling the opponents).

Especially if you know from previous rounds that your partner doesn't understand the system you've supposedly agreed upon, you have a duty to disclose. And then, what if you tell them privately, out of a duty to disclose, "Partner doesn't count king of trump..." [or whatever], but your partner realized the previous mistake and now you've misinformed the opponents, etc. Could be messy, fool opponents into sacrificing/doubling/neither. Then they're suspicious you tried to fool them, call director, etc. Whereas if you'd clarified it with your partner after it had happened, you could have avoided the problem of misinforming your opponents.

Similarly, if your convention card says udca or whatever, and you know from previous rounds your partner doesn't know it properly even though it was agreed to, do you privately message the declarer, "even though our cc says udca, p doesn't understand it properly". Declarer messages your p, "what carding", your p replies "udca", you're in a big mess, declarer doesn't know what you're doing. Whereas if you'd briefly, politely, discussed it with your partner before, when the misunderstanding arose, you could have agreed just to use a simpler signalling system to avoid confusion and changed your card accordingly.

Anyone can make a mistake, but when you KNOW your partner doesn't understand/use properly something you've told the opponents your partnership uses, you have a duty to inform them. Otherwise you have unauthorized information.

[pclayton]

A tale from the front lines:

Scoring: IMP

---

Our auction:

2♣ - 2♥
3♦ - 3♥
4♦ - 4♠
5♣ - 5♦
6♦ - Pass

This was in a team match against Ben last night. Our counterparts stopped in 5♦ so we lost 13 when clubs split but diamonds didn't.

I died when I saw his hand. What makes him think that he can make 12 tricks opposite a misfitting hand? Yet I shut my mouth. Didn't have the heart to tell him I only agreed with 2 of his bids. However, from his perspective a single minor suit jack actually makes slam reasonable.

About 5 minutes later, pard says, "if diamonds split I make it". My reply: "Yes its close".

Given the fact this is about a 20% slam, its not really "close". But what good does it do me to lecture him on his bidding?

[cnszsun]

pclayton, on Dec 30 2004, 02:54 PM, said:

But what good does it do me to lecture him on his bidding?

I was kibitzing when you were playing. I saw your partner made more than one mistakes although i'm not expert, but nobody told him, so maybe he didn't feel it till now. If he is playing bridge for fun, it's ok, but if he is playing for improving, i think he may want to know what wrong he has made.

[Flame]

epeeist, on Dec 30 2004, 03:43 AM, said:

ArcLight, on Dec 28 2004, 03:31 PM, said:

Ex. Pard has RKBW 1430 on his card, I explicityly say ok to that.  Then when I bid 4NT he responds 5♣ with 2 Keycards.  He didn't really know the convention.
So I ask "P,  did I misinterpret your 5♣ response? I thought it showed 1 Keycard so I bailed out in 5♥" and leave it at that.  No further comments from me.  (he didn't realize the trump K counted as a Keycard)

I tend to agree with you and disagree with Flame. In a tournament, what about the duty to (correctly and properly) alert opponents, and in some tournaments, post a convention card? If your partnership's bidding doesn't match what you've told your opponents your system is, you are misinforming them (a mistake, fine; but if you know your partner is prone to make mistakes, that's UI, just like knowing your partner is prone to psyche frequently and not telling the opponents).

Especially if you know from previous rounds that your partner doesn't understand the system you've supposedly agreed upon, you have a duty to disclose. And then, what if you tell them privately, out of a duty to disclose, "Partner doesn't count king of trump..." [or whatever], but your partner realized the previous mistake and now you've misinformed the opponents, etc. Could be messy, fool opponents into sacrificing/doubling/neither. Then they're suspicious you tried to fool them, call director, etc. Whereas if you'd clarified it with your partner after it had happened, you could have avoided the problem of misinforming your opponents.

Similarly, if your convention card says udca or whatever, and you know from previous rounds your partner doesn't know it properly even though it was agreed to, do you privately message the declarer, "even though our cc says udca, p doesn't understand it properly". Declarer messages your p, "what carding", your p replies "udca", you're in a big mess, declarer doesn't know what you're doing. Whereas if you'd briefly, politely, discussed it with your partner before, when the misunderstanding arose, you could have agreed just to use a simpler signalling system to avoid confusion and changed your card accordingly.

Anyone can make a mistake, but when you KNOW your partner doesn't understand/use properly something you've told the opponents your partnership uses, you have a duty to inform them. Otherwise you have unauthorized information.

I guess i wasnt clear since i agree with what you said and you said you dont agree with me. Im not saying you shouldnt clear things with partner, i said exactly the opposite, you should talk inorder to clear things like mentioned here, but not inorder to teach him, I also said you should approach the problem as its a misunderstanding and not a mistake by partner, atleast it what you should initially assume, unless partner say sry my mistake. In other words if you need to teach your partner you better play with someone else because he isnt good enough, so assume misunderstanding or a different style and if you find out its not, just say good bye.

[cf_John0]

IMO,two pards just like two hands,usually we bid them in "natural system".It's hard to bid precisely,ie,the bidding skill in "natural system" might decide the two pards' cooperative relationship.
what do you think about my opinion?

[pork rind]

when i have a screwup because i misinterpreted a bid pard made, i say after the hand. " sorry partner, i thought your bid meant this or that. my fault." if the screwup is because pard is not so good, i say nothing. sometimes this is esp hard when pard is not so good and places the blame on you instead. then i just mark them as enemy and try to never play with them again.

[beatrix45]

Ask yourself, "what is my objective in saying something?" At bridge the legitimate objective is to win the event (or money). If you buy into this, the only question is: "which event? This one, or some later event with this same partner?"

In the former case, saying nothing is usually best so as not to break partner's concentration. In the latter case, it is usually best to wait until the event is over and do your teaching and analysis in a calmer atmosphere.

Now, if you are playing bridge to have fun and having fun involves emotional outbursts, have at it. The only real limit is not to offend the opponents. If pard wants to be a verbal punching bag for your dispepsic commentaries, beat him/her like a three legged dog.

[mr1303]

The thing is, around 70% of people on bridgebase would bid that in a similar way.
After a while, you learn that opening 2C on hands like that leads to a losing result in the long run, but if you've only played for a couple of years you do.

And anyway, give you:

x
AKxxxxx
xx
xxx

which is also conceiveable on the bidding

then 6D makes as long as a) ace of diamonds is onside or diamonds are 2-2
which makes it a good slam.

So I wouldn't have a go too much at my partner on this one

[pclayton]

Nah, with AK-7th I'd make more noise than 3♥ on the 2nd round. Not that others wouldn't bid it the same way.

Opponents are quiet with 10 spades as well. Possible, but not likely.

[Flame]

pclayton, on Dec 31 2004, 07:24 PM, said:

Nah, with AK-7th I'd make more noise than 3♥ on the 2nd round. Not that others wouldn't bid it the same way.

Opponents are quiet with 10 spades as well. Possible, but not likely.

imo you expect way to much from partner, there are many hands you can have that will make a slam on the same bidding and you would bid them exactly the same, like the added J you mentioned , or another spade 1 less club (which looks very likely from partner's point of view) or the A of heart. I do think its a close bid and would wish my partners will only make this kind of mistakes.
Intresting to this thread, one might hold his hand and "logicly" lecture you something like this "after showing a positive hand with 2h, i expected more from your spade cue bid, since you are weak for your first response you shouldnt bid 3s"
This oviously is wrong but its a kind of one sided logic which we sometimes see at the table.

[pclayton]

Well, my partner wasn't an active poster in these forums. If he was, he would have had a more robust hand for a 2♣ opening followed by a 3♦ rebid.

By bypassing 3N partner shows an absolute MOOSE. The K♠ very well could be the key to the hand. I don't see why he can't have Qxx, void, AKQxxxx, AKQ.

Anyway, I brought up the hand as an example of what happens when partners have a bad board; not so much as to ask: "You hold KJ, KJTxxx, xx, xxx......".