[jillybean]

Happy ending, despite getting a bottom for the "OMG was that hearts not diamonds?" hand.

---

This looks like a normal auction; however, what would 5♥/5♦ say?


And this game is never-ending — just when I think I am beginning to settle into a convention card, this comes up:
By a passed hand:
1♦ - 2NT is preemptive in diamonds
1♦ - 3♦ is a 5 card limit raise
1♦ - 3♣. is 5♣, 4+♦, 10pts

1♣ - 3♣ preemptive
1♣ - 2NT 4+♣ 5♦ 10 pts. (memory cells screaming)

[heart76]

If 4NT asks in ♠, and 5♦ correctly asks about ♠Q after 5♣ answer to RKCB, then 5♥ shows the ♠Q and the ♥K.
The only meaning I would give to 6♥ is a last train grand slam try, subject to a specific agreement about what it is based upon.

Regarding the weak raise / limit raise, I am not so fancy, but there are surely many different tastes out there.
I don't see why e.g. 1♦ - 2NT should be the preempt instead of 3♦, which also covers the 3♣ bid. I would reverse those two.
Then you can have different agreements about 1♣ - 2♦ (inv. jump-fit or artificial GF with ♣) and 1♦ - 3♣ (however, it is good IMHO that it implies ♦ fit, as the invitational jump raise is one of the ugliest things I've seen - sorry )

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-September-16, 12:57, said:

Happy ending, despite getting a bottom for the "OMG was that hearts not diamonds?" hand.

---

This looks like a normal auction; however, what would 5♥/5♦ say?

I don't like the 4NT RKCB rather than control-bidding, but that is a question of style and agreements.
I do trust it is fixing trumps in spades, otherwise we are off the natural rails.
I don't think there is a "normal" meaning for 5♣ after 4NT RKCB, particularly when trumps are spades, it could be either 03 or 14 and must be firmly agreed.
5♦ asking for Q is "normal", but why should one with Q jump to 6♥ to show ♥K rather than the cheaper 5♥ which is available?
My suggestion is to bid 5♥ showing the only or cheaper to show K and let 6♣ be a probe for an additional minor K.
This frees up a direct 6♥ for other uses such as SSA or a grand slam try with impressive hearts (although I prefer to leave any unexpected jump to slam as being to play).

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-September-16, 12:57, said:

Happy ending, despite getting a bottom for the "OMG was that hearts not diamonds?" hand.
And this game is never-ending — just when I think I am beginning to settle into a convention card, this comes up:
By a passed hand:
1♦ - 2NT is preemptive in diamonds
1♦ - 3♦ is a 5 card limit raise
1♦ - 3♣. is 5♣, 4+♦, 10pts

1♣ - 3♣ preemptive
1♣ - 2NT 4+♣ 5♦ 10 pts. (memory cells screaming)

Just say no

This game is never ending, micro-agreements that are more or less obvious to experts and ensure them some marginal gains can be an unsustainable memory load to I/A and ensure misundertandings.
This one doesn't even look very good.
KISS except when things are relatively high frequency (like MultiLandy) and/or fairly natural (like XYZ) or high gain (like precise RKCB).

[DavidKok]

Several different topics.

• On 1♥-1♠, I prefer raising with 3 spades over rebidding a NF 2♥. Here I think that can help set trumps explicitly, instead of implicitly.
  
• I do not like the jump to 4NT. Additionally, for me that would be natural quantitative, with 5♣ showing a maximum and patterning out (e.g. a 14-count 3=6=1=3, awkward opposite the diamonds but not unexpected). It is good that partner and you were on the same page.
  
• With 4NT RKCB for spades and 5♣ showing 1/4 (if it shows 0/3 for you the rest is the same), my answers over 5♦ are:
  • 5♥: ♠Q + [either ♥K but not the other two, or ♦K+♣K].
    
  • 5♠: No ♠Q
    
  • 5NT: ♠Q + all three kings
    
  • 6♣: ♠Q + [either ♣K but not the other two, or ♥K+♦K].
    
  • 6♦: ♠Q + [either ♦K but not the other two, or ♥K+♣K].
    
  • 6♥: ♠Q + ♥AKQxxx or better, no other kings.
    
  • 6♠: ♠Q, no kings.
  I want to make it clear that not only is this almost never ambiguous because we used control bidding first, also I have no desire to rush into Blackwood because all too often it won't solve my problems. Surely with worse agreements it solves the problem less often, not more often.
  
• Your minor suit agreements are, in my opinion, both weird and poor. I understand not wanting a forcing raise by a passed hand (though I don't actually think this is a good idea, but at least I understand the temptation). If you want to play this, I recommend instead using the scheme P-1m; ?
  • 2m: Invitational raise, approximately 9-11
    
  • 2NT: 'Garbage' preemptive raise (no game opposite 18-19 balanced, please please read this sentence partner), approximately 0-6
    
  • 3m: 'Mixed' raise, game opposite 18-19 balanced but usually not opposite weaker hands, approximately 6-9
  I don't have a wish to reserve a bid for invitational hands with both minors. Is this maybe some artefact of the 1m openings, that you regularly want to play in the other one? It seems like a really narrow target to me, but as long as it doesn't come up and you don't think of opportunity cost the harm is limited.

[WasWinM]

I think this auction is another example of a "trying to tell you something, partner" bid, meaning it is undiscussed but trusting you can work out what I mean. First, it requires enough trust that if partner can't work it out he or she will sign off in 6S, not in the deer in the headlight look and pass in 6H that can happen. With that explanation, my guess is that partner is trying to show me that we will have 13 tricks available if I can furnish the filler card for hearts, like a singleton Q, maybe the J. I visualize a hand like AQx, AKJ10xx, xx, xx.

[DavidKok]

 pescetom, on 2026-September-16, 14:58, said:

Just say no

This game is never ending, micro-agreements that are more or less obvious to experts and ensure them some marginal gains can be an unsustainable memory load to I/A and ensure misundertandings.
This one doesn't even look very good.

I fully agree.

 pescetom, on 2026-September-16, 14:58, said:

KISS except when things are relatively high frequency (like MultiLandy) and/or fairly natural (like XYZ) or high gain (like precise RKCB).

Arguably the direction on that last one is reversed, if you could convince people to forget Blackwood entirely they would be far better off

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2026-September-16, 15:17, said:

I fully agree.
Arguably the direction on that last one is reversed, if you could convince people to forget Blackwood entirely they would be far better off

Yes, it wasn't the best example of high gain, but I didn't want to be unpopular
As a mentor, I refuse to play any flavour of Blackwood with our learners, although they are already contaminated by others.
As a player, I used it (IIRC) twice in the last year.
Although never say never, yesterday I used Gerber

[jillybean]

Yes, a lot going on here, the hand. (I'll post it soon)

* 5♥ showing Q and ♥K is not universal. When you are unknown at a club you receive all sorts of unsolicited, helpful advice including the comment that 6♥ is the only way to show Q + K.

* I agree with the cue bid approach; however, when I post the full hand you may agree with Keycard.

* Spades are set as trump after 4nt / 3♠. If this wasn't the case, we'd be at the helm of the Titanic.

* 1430 is normal

* Some partners forbid a spade raise with 3



The minor scheme; weird, yes.

[mike777]

I guess my very first question would be, How do you bid a weakish hand with 4 spades and long diamonds or clubs, after 1h-1s-2h-? How do you force?
I suppose you can just pass 2H with weakish values.

If you agree 3d is natural and gf and 3s shows 3 or Hx, I guess you can start cuebidding if 4NT is going to be natural and quantitative here. Will your intermediate level partner take 4d as a cuebid denying club controls?

As I have discovered it seems everyone has their own way showing Kings or asking for Kings style here and all assume their style is the standard, normal way....

At the very least 1H -1s starts are tough...

The entire post is full of things to agree on...A very difficult deal...

A lot to discuss on this deal.

[jillybean]

---

not so difficult

[kerkido]

Whether or not 4NT was correct, having decided to bid that, I don't really understand 5♦. What was West going to do if East denied the ♠Q (which, with a known 10-card fit, wasn't a card West cared about)? Or showed it without the ♥K?

[jillybean]

I do care if we are missing ♠AQJ

[kerkido]

Which you'll know how? Take East's hand, remove the ♠Q, will you pass East's 5♠ bid and miss an easy slam because you don't know which ace partner has? (If so, that demonstrates 4NT must be wrong.)

[jillybean]

How easy is the slam missing QJx,
Assuming that 4♣/3♠ is a cue bid, what will you do over 4♥?

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2026-September-16, 19:38, said:

Assuming that 4♣/3♠ is a cue bid, what will you do over 4♥?

Playing basic Turbo, we now bid 5♣ showing control in diamonds, odd keycards and dual control of clubs. Partner bids 5♦ showing third level diamonds control (already denied first or second) and now we bid 6♦ to inform about dual control of diamonds. Partner knowing we miss a keycard has an obvious 6♠.

[jillybean]

No turbo.
Mike777, 3♦ is natural, gf and I thought that was standard, likewise with 3♠ = 3, I avoid raising wuth Hx

[WasWinM]

Even we old fashioned players understood that the purpose of Ace-asking type bids was not to find slam but to avoid hopeless slams. I still don't get this Keycard fiesta when control of all the suits is not accounted.
Suppose opening bidder held AQx, Q109xxx, Qx, Kxx? The bidding wouldn't change, but the result sure would. This is why cue bidding is essential, and ace asking is to verify, even keycard.

[mike777]

Which brings up yet another issue to ask.
Over three spades, just bid six? Make them find and cash the AK of H.
Is the risk of missing seven too high?

Can we intermediates do a cost/benefit analysis ahead of Time or just approach bridge from a zero risk viewpoint.

[jillybean]

I was looking at my 5♥ bid here, I'm not going to change my partners keycard approach.
Having played the hand, I can't honestly say what I would do with west cards.

Please show me a "normal" auction here
The discussions on forums is not what is going on at the clubs.

---

I'm not happy making a heart cue with KQ