[semeai]

gnasher, on 2011-July-15, 01:06, said:

Sorry, I'd misunderstood - I thought we were still talking about responder's right to take control, ie your question "How did the responder to keycard suddenly gain control of the auction?"

It seems we've had a semantic mixup. By keycard-responder taking control of the auction, I meant no more and no less than keycard-responder getting to be the one making asks (i.e. asking for help) in side suits rather than showing specific cards/holdings. If this is a word that usually means I have crazy ideas about bidding, I'll try to refrain from using it in the future!

Quote

Regarding the exact meaning of 6♣: I'd normally play this type of bid as a response to the queen ask (but also saying that a grand slam is a possibility). That is, it would show ♠Q, ♣A, and grand-slam aspirations. In fact, that's what I said it was in my first post in this thread, before I'd thought aboiut it properly.

However, this auction is unusual, in that the keycard bidder is limited, and the keycard responder knows most about what level we should be playing at. Therefore it makes sense for responder's bids to be consultative rather than merely replying to a question that wasn't even asked. I think 6♣ should show something like KQ Axx Axx AQxxx, ie a hand where opener's club holding is critical. I'm not saying that I would assume that at the table - it would depend on who I was playing with.

This is an interesting meaning, and it could work well. It would just not occur to me, and I don't know how it would occur to your partner, that you wouldn't just be showing the keycard-asker your ♠Q ♣K instead of now getting to be the one asking for help. Whenever keycard asker is limited and keycard responder is unlimited, does something like this happen? For example, after 4N-5D;5N, showing all keys, it seems the same logic as you have here would entitle keycard responder to bid 6♣ not as ♣K but as asking for help if sufficiently unlimited opposite a sufficiently limited partner. This is why I asked you about that auction too.

Quote

Another good reason for this interpretation is that it's actually impossible that responder has four key-cards, the queen of trumps, and ♣K, and still be uncertain of the right level - he would have had a grand-slam drive after the 4NT bid.

This seems like a difficult inference. I'm not fond of these "torture bids" that require partner to divine that I've tried an unusual meaning for a bid because I think it can be worked out.

In addition, your statement is maybe not true. See my above construction, with

QJxxxx
x
KQJ
Axx

AKxxx
Ax
A
Kxxxx

(Of course, your meaning for 6♣ is fine on this pair of hands too, but that's not the point!) Perhaps the lower hand would've bid keycard itself instead of cueing 4♣, but I'm not sure we can demand that. Probably he didn't expect his partner to bid 4NT, which is also a bit suspect with the top hand here, but I don't think we can forbid that hand from bidding 4NT either.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Furlan, on 2011-July-13, 22:54, said:

Queen ask would be 5♥, not 5♠.

If the asker were SURE the 5♦ reply were 4, then he could make the 5♥-trump Q-ask.

Since he wasn't sure, he bids 5S as explained.
When the Replier HAS 4, it is standard to "answer" as if he were asked for the trump Q -- hence the 6♣ reply showing the ♠ Q and ♣ K ( as others have answered here ) .

[gnasher]

semeai, on 2011-July-15, 06:17, said:

This is an interesting meaning, and it could work well. It would just not occur to me, and I don't know how it would occur to your partner, that you wouldn't just be showing the keycard-asker your ♠Q ♣K instead of now getting to be the one asking for help. Whenever keycard asker is limited and keycard responder is unlimited, does something like this happen? For example, after 4N-5D;5N, showing all keys, it seems the same logic as you have here would entitle keycard responder to bid 6♣ not as ♣K but as asking for help if sufficiently unlimited opposite a sufficiently limited partner. This is why I asked you about that auction too.

Did you mean 4NT-5♦;5NT specifically after this start? I don't believe that's possible in this auction - opener would have to have four keycards and the queen of trumps, which seems inconsistent with his 3NT bid.

If you're asking about this category of sequence, where the Keycard bidder is limited and well-defined but the other hand is not, then yes, I think it should be saying "I need help here", by the same logic as before.

When the limited hand bids 5NT the primary meaning is "We have all the keycards, do you want to bid a grand slam?". It can't really be "If you tell me what kings you have I'll know what to do.", because the limited hand doesn't have enough information.

Quote

This seems like a difficult inference. I'm not fond of these "torture bids" that require partner to divine that I've tried an unusual meaning for a bid because I think it can be worked out.

As I said, I would only do it if I thought it was going to be understood. Of course, the problem can be avoided entirely by having the unlimited hand be the one that bids Keycard.

Quote

In addition, your statement is maybe not true. See my above construction, with
QJxxxx
x
KQJ
Axx

I think 4NT on that hand is a very poor bid. What will he do opposite three key cards, not knowing if there is a club loser?

[semeai]

gnasher, on 2011-July-16, 02:29, said:

Did you mean 4NT-5♦;5NT specifically after this start? I don't believe that's possible in this auction - opener would have to have four keycards and the queen of trumps, which seems inconsistent with his 3NT bid.

If you're asking about this category of sequence, where the Keycard bidder is limited and well-defined but the other hand is not, then yes, I think it should be saying "I need help here", by the same logic as before.

When the limited hand bids 5NT the primary meaning is "We have all the keycards, do you want to bid a grand slam?". It can't really be "If you tell me what kings you have I'll know what to do.", because the limited hand doesn't have enough information.

Okay, thanks. This seems a reasonable/good way to play it, though I'd not heard of it being used this way before.

Do you specifically have this agreement with partners, or just expect them to find this logical?

Is it widely played? My copy of Kantar's rkc book is not the latest, but I don't recall this sort of thing being mentioned. This of course doesn't mean much about its usefulness, just about how widespread it's likely to be.

[barryallen]

As the OP has already informed us that "After 1 or 4, go on with 4!" and that 5♥ would ask for the ♠Q, I can only see one conclusion otherwise it never gets posted in the first place. For two good players I can hardly see any confusion arising here but for the additional information carried by the 6♣ bid. After this sequence of bids I would assume something like, but I expect others have better.

5NT shows the ♠Q with any subsequent suit bid as asking for Q
6♣ shows the AK♣ plus ♠Q
6♦, ♥ shows that suit K plus the ♠Q
6♠ denies the Q

The only confusion I can see arising is over the holding of the ♠Q or the unlikely holding of ♠AK and two outside A, but I cannot see that as an issue given the bidding so far. You have to have a method of showing the ♠Q when you go forward with 4 key controls whether that is by denial with 5NT/6♠ or acceptance.

[gnasher]

semeai, on 2011-July-16, 06:21, said:

Do you specifically have this agreement with partners, or just expect them to find this logical?

No, I've never discussed it with anyone, but perhaps I should.

Quote

Is it widely played?

I've no idea. However, it appears from the responses of Free and Cyberyeti that they would assume the same.