[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-October-04, 03:48, said:

The inferences of the auction are quite complicated. Partner has a 3♠ raise with neither minor suit K so keycarder is expecting ♠A a very high percentage of the time. Blackwooder has asked for the Q, so with it you're committed to a slam anyway. There are holdings where the club void is good news, and holdings where it's a disaster, but it doesn't raise the level, partner can basically write down your whole hand with the exception that you might have ♥J.

I don't see any other way of proceeding that gives you more information than keycard, partner could easily have had AQxx, KJxx, xxxx, x where slam is good and the auction goes the same way to 4♥. Partner's only possible cue is club shortage.

A note would be that we can still be 5116 on this auction, we don't automatically open 1♠.

Imo, this post exemplifies the mindset of those who use keycard as a slam try rather than as a way of avoiding a slam when one has lots of values but are missing either 2 keycards or one and the trump queen. Those of us who don’t see a need for us to make every decision for the partnership trust that, when we describe our hand, our partner will make intelligent decisions.

I’d estimate that in my partnerships we probably use keycard on maybe 60-70% of our slams. The remainder are either quantitative notrump auctions or control bidding. Btw, refusing to use keycard is actually something that helps partner…partner infers that you have slam interest but can’t take control.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2026-October-04, 13:53, said:

Imo, this post exemplifies the mindset of those who use keycard as a slam try rather than as a way of avoiding a slam when one has lots of values but are missing either 2 keycards or one and the trump queen. Those of us who don’t see a need for us to make every decision for the partnership trust that, when we describe our hand, our partner will make intelligent decisions.

I’d estimate that in my partnerships we probably use keycard on maybe 60-70% of our slams. The remainder are either quantitative notrump auctions or control bidding. Btw, refusing to use keycard is actually something that helps partner…partner infers that you have slam interest but can’t take control.

So how do you bid, I think keycard is pretty much automatic in this particular auction, because partner has basically already denied anything useful to tell you apart from his trump holding, which keycard can find out.

To stay out of this, we would have to bid 2♠ rather than 3, or sign off over 5♣ which is the most likely way.

[akwoo]

mikeh, on 2026-October-04, 13:53, said:

Those of us who don’t see a need for us to make every decision for the partnership trust that, when we describe our hand, our partner will make intelligent decisions.

Mikeh - you must be very fortunate to have at most rarely have had partner tell you they weren't intelligent enough to make the decision you left to them and you should just take control.

Last week, I made the opening lead of the Q from QJx in an unbid suit against a suit contract. Dummy shows up with 3 small. Partner plays low and the Q holds. Naturally I figure partner wants a switch and make the obvious one. Nope - partner just didn't think to cover with AKx. Partner said after the hand that I can't expect him to make intelligent plays of this sort.

[WasWinM]

In ordinary times, this would be a simple 1C-1H-1S-2S and end it 4S; however, it is a good example where if significantly behind in a team game I might venture 3S instead of 2, but it would be rare and we would have to be behind by a lot.

[pescetom]

Back from directing a rocky 15 table tournament, not very inspired...

But whether or not North finds the 1♠ rebid, we would certainly end up control-bidding in spades.
Say he does rebid 1♠ then it would go:

1♣ - 1♦
1♠ - 2♣ (inv)
2♦ (puppet) - 2♠
4♣ (ctl) - 4♥ (ctl)
4N (even, ctl ♦) - ?

On a sensible Tuesday I would stop in 5♠, on a for fun Friday 6♠.

[mikeh]

akwoo, on 2026-October-04, 14:38, said:

Mikeh - you must be very fortunate to have at most rarely have had partner tell you they weren't intelligent enough to make the decision you left to them and you should just take control.

Last week, I made the opening lead of the Q from QJx in an unbid suit against a suit contract. Dummy shows up with 3 small. Partner plays low and the Q holds. Naturally I figure partner wants a switch and make the obvious one. Nope - partner just didn't think to cover with AKx. Partner said after the hand that I can't expect him to make intelligent plays of this sort.

I guess I am fortunate in terms of those with whom I play on a regular basis. But my approach has always been that if I hope or plan to play with my partner on a semi regular or better basis, I will not mastermind. So partner doesn’t understand what I’m doing or doesn’t recognize what he or she should be doing? Not a problem. We discuss it later.

When I began to play what I thought was serious bridge, almost 50 years ago now, I wasn’t anywhere nearly as good as I thought I was, but I guess I’d shown enough that a couple of expert players played with me in sectionals or the rare regionals I could afford to go to….and they, as I recall, didn’t mastermind either. So I’d make mistakes, not even realizing that they were mistakes…and I’d learn after the session what I’d done wrong and how I should have been thinking.

Combine that with reading as many bridge books as I could and eventually I became a better player.

I know from discussions with friends…especially the expert players amongst them…that my experience is far from unique. But back then, after a sectional or regional event, there’d be up to 20 of us at the bar listening to the five or six best players argue over the hands. I learned more about cooperative bidding and judgement in those sessions than in all of the books combined.

Maybe it’s different in other parts of the world but, it seems to me, that much of the post game experiences that were normal back then don’t happen anymore, and haven’t for many years. So, at least in NA, the opportunities to learn as I and my friends did aren’t anywhere close to how they used to be.

Back when I started to play, we’d see a wide range of skill at, say, a club game. Nowadays, and we’re lucky in that locally the best players still play at the club, we may have three or sometimes 4 pairs with either one or both being expert, and maybe three or four who could be seen as advanced and the rest, in a 22 table game, would be intermediates at best. Players who’ve never read a bridge book and have no interest in improving. They play for the social aspect, which is fine but means that the games are not very interesting.

Btw, in our town of maybe 400,000 we have 8 Grand Life Masters. I was told the other day that this is the highest per capita number in the ACBL. I don’t know if that’s true but maybe it explains why I can adopt the attitude I have with my partners, though I often play with non GLMs (and my main partner isn’t a Grand LM because he has never played much, but he’s the best player in town).

Anyway, imo if one wants to play bridge to the best of one’s ability, don’t intentionally play badly merely because you think partner won’t understand a good bid or play. They may not this time, but they’ll never learn if you don’t let them fail.