[bluecalm]

Btw, to original question:

1♣ 2♦
2♠ 2NT
3♦ 4♣
4NT - w/e
6 or 7D depending on how many aces we have.

In Berkowitz/Manley precision you have to bid 2♠ after 2♦ because we are still no in SI+ zone so we can't afford losing spade suit. After that it's natural and N can count 13 tricks if aces are not missing.
This is very simple hand. I suspect the players were tired and mindslipped somewhere in their system.

[dcohio]

 gwnn, on 2011-March-24, 07:11, said:

A button between caps lock and the ~ sign.

or Trump Asking Bid, with responses like 012123 or some such, as follows:
0/3 honours
1/3 honours and 5 cards
2/3 honours and 5 cards
3/3 honours and 5 cards (or also 6?)
1/3 honours and 6 cards
2/3 honours and 6 cards

Close

5(6) card suit 0/3 top honors
5 card suit 1/3
5 card suit 2/3
6 card suit 1/3
6 card suit 2/3
5(6) card suit 3/3

[bluecalm]

In Delmonte - Bakhshi sequence:

1♠ 2♦
4♦ 5NT
6♣ 7♦

(4d was keycard)
I guess 5NT shows even number of keycard and a void. Then Delmonte wanted to ask about Qd but partner though it's about kings or grand invite. That's my guess about their sequence.

In Levin-Weinstein sequence I am very curious what went wrong but I suppose they didn't discuss kickback enough (another argument that kickback is not worth it at all, they will have to play 50 more years to make up this misunderstanding by applying kickback).

[gwnn]

 dcohio, on 2011-March-24, 07:29, said:

Close

5(6) card suit 0/3 top honors
5 card suit 1/3
5 card suit 2/3
6 card suit 1/3
6 card suit 2/3
5(6) card suit 3/3

oh yes. I wrote 012123 but then wrote a wrong explanation

[Phil]

Weinstein published his email exchange with Levin on bridgewinners this morning. It gives you a lot of perspective on how top partnerships handle these disasters at the table and later.

My take is that the 1st five calls in Levin's Weisntein's are automatic and the skip of 3♠ does not deny the ♠A. Over 4♣, I think 5♠ is now unambiguously EKCB.

It appears Ish/Bahkshi had a misunderstanding about the meaning of 5N and what constitutes a useful void (if they even spoke about it). I also hate 4♦ here; why is this hand needing to take control?

[kenrexford]

As a related side note, I happen to hate the idea of showing a "useful void."

First of all, it rarely comes up. This makes the call prone to disaster, even if you remember how to show it, because partner always forgets.

Second, the auction usually has gone terribly wrong if the person asking questions doesn't have the void.

Third, the "useful void" is usually not remotely useful. Partner usually thinks his void is impressive, but I asked for aces because I don't care about a stupid void.

Fourth, your void showing bid just killed any chance I had to ask about Kings, partner.

There are many other reasons why I hate that call. I'd rather find a unique structure for dealing with 3C openings in fourth seat than spend a minute more with any partner discussing "useful voids" other than to say, "you don't have a useful void ever."

[gnasher]

 kenrexford, on 2011-March-24, 16:47, said:

As a related side note, I happen to hate the idea of showing a "useful void."

First of all, it rarely comes up. This makes the call prone to disaster, even if you remember how to show it, because partner always forgets.

Second, the auction usually has gone terribly wrong if the person asking questions doesn't have the void.

Third, the "useful void" is usually not remotely useful. Partner usually thinks his void is impressive, but I asked for aces because I don't care about a stupid void.

Fourth, your void showing bid just killed any chance I had to ask about Kings, partner.

There are many other reasons why I hate that call. I'd rather find a unique structure for dealing with 3C openings in fourth seat than spend a minute more with any partner discussing "useful voids" other than to say, "you don't have a useful void ever."

I agree with all of that.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 wyman, on 2011-March-23, 15:30, said:

Ok. What was 5N then?

Are you saying that 5N was anti-systemic?

Sorry I didn't reply sooner.

5NT was either a mistake -- a brain fart -- replying as if 4NT was used for key card ask ;

or, he rejected the reply by using the GSF-ask instead... figuring 6D was cold, but that 7D would be on if partner had the ♦ Ace.

[y66]

I enjoyed reading the Levin-Weinstein postmortem mentioned above and the comments. That's as good as anything bridge-related I've ever read.

[mike777]

FASCINATING


Wonderful and follow up comments on the site add further context to the emails.

A fistful of issues to deal with starting with should one bid 4h over 2d for starters? Is 4h over 3h an offer to play? What is 3s or a lack of a 3s bid over 3h and more?

[aguahombre]

 mike777, on 2011-March-25, 08:42, said:

A fistful of issues to deal with starting with should one bid 4h over 2d for starters?

I believe both Weinstein and Levin mentioned (afterward) that 4H or 4D by opener, whichever was immediately RKC for diamonds was a reasonable possibiility. As, did a lot of us average folk. A drawback would possibly be not playing the hand in spades if responder had a fit and losing a couple IMPs that way.

Agree that W/L sharing those emails is possibly the most beneficial thing posted on bridge in a long time.

[mike777]

One of the most interesting discussions here on the forums and also concerning this deal is how to back into a second suit as trumps once another suit has been bid and raised. If pard bids bw what suit is trumps?


On this deal you had three suits in play. First diamonds have been bid and raised. A fear of partner backing into spades as trump if 3s is bid. A concern that 4h over 3h would set hearts as trumps not kickback in diamonds.


Alot of issues on this one.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 mike777, on 2011-March-25, 09:49, said:

One of the most interesting discussions here on the forums and also concerning this deal is how to back into a second suit as trumps once another suit has been bid and raised. If pard bids bw what suit is trumps?


On this deal you had three suits in play. First diamonds have been bid and raised. A fear of partner backing into spades as trump if 3s is bid. A concern that 4h over 3h would set hearts as trumps not kickback in diamonds.


A lot of issues on this one.

Yes, a lot of interesting stuff here.

One issue, which I failed to address in another recent "kickback" thread -- kenberg's I believe( not this hand )-- is that in a GAME FORCE auction with an agreed minor ( m ) -- do NOT play kickback. Instead, the first partner to bid 4m should be taken as RKC ( Minorwood ).
This, among other things, would reduce confusion if the kickback suit is bid at the 4-level.

As for this hand, the most serious error was Weinstein's use of RKC with a VOID. Then when he asked for KINGS, you can't fault his partner , Levin, for thinking they had accounted for ALL the key cards.... hence, his subsequent jump to 7D.
I agree Weinstein was "pushed" into using RKC since Levin could not stop cuebidding when there was no need to after Weinstein's 3H bid -- which denied 3 card Sp support -- it was either a cue or a probe for 3NT ).

Since Levin had NO 2 quick losers in any sidesuit, he could afford RKC at this point ( whether Minorwood or even the agreed kickback ). Some folks just like to cuebid to death !!

Speaking of cuebidding, don't you cuebid "up-the line" -- ie the cheapest cuebid ??
Why did Weinstein by-pass a 3S cuebid in favor of a 4C cuebid ?

[mike777]

He explains why in the article. He was afraid partner would bid 4s over 3s with Jx.

). I didn’t want to bid 3 because I didn’t want you to bid 4 with Jx of spades and a minimum hand cause then it might be ambiguous whether 4NT is keycard for diamonds or spades over this. I was also nervous that if I bid 3 and you jumped to 5 I wouldn’t know what to do. I thought 4 had the best chance of getting you to bid RKC yourself or just bid 4 and let me bid 4 RKC now. So, as JEC {Jimmy Cayne} would say, "original sin"

[dcohio]

He thought 3S would be too ambiguous... i.e still searching for strain instead of a cue in diamonds. His rationale makes sense, although Levin said 3S followed by further action past 3NT would solidify it into a cue.

By going past 3S and bidding 4C, Weinstein planted the thought in Levin's head that he was lacking the ace of spades, hence it was safe to blackwood with his spade void. I think this is why he drove to 7 once he found the "diamond ace"...

[kenrexford]

Not cuebidding 3♠ because the auction might get confusing, and instead cuebidding 4♣ which by their definition apparently denied the spade Ace, is silliness. This is what I meant by 2/1 GF not being the problem. If you deny something that you have, under the theory that denying something is better than possible ambiguity if you actually show it, the auction breaks down horribly.

Could 3♠ be raised to 4♠? Sure -- why not? So? I would have expected a good patrtnership to havea means of unwinding which call is RKCB for which suit in this type of scenario, if that actually happened. For instance,

1. 4NT is always RKCB for the major, and thus
2. The cheapest non-fit (5♣) is RKCB for the minor

or

1. The cheapest RKCB-eligible call (4NT) is always RKCB for the focus suit (diamonds), and thus
2. The next cheapest RKCB-eligible call (5♣) is always RCB for the secondary/alternative strain

Something like that, depending.

Granted, average joes do not have these types of agreements, but these folks should. How many high-level 2/1GF "support the minor" disasters will it take before the expert community starts devising (or adopting -- give me a call LOL) some rules here?

Alternatively (or in addition), BTW, some might even have used flags here, also. Meaning, after 3S, 4♣ as a spade raise (Jx scenario), 4♦ as the diamond confirmation, or vice-versa, either of which is my general preference. Then, RKCB calls are cheaper and less troubling. If flags were used, 4♠ still might be bid, but this would tend sufficiently toward "denial" to be manageable.