[Gerben42]

1♦ - 1♥
2♠ - 3♦
3♥ - 4NT

4NT = ?

[helene_t]

It is not quantitative since a hand that would want to quanti would have bid 2NT, not 3♦. RKC doesn't make too much sense either unless responder is determined to bid 7 with sufficient keycards. Otherwise he should ha started cuebidding instead.

Maybe it's six-ace Blackwood. If we don't play that, it is RKC for diamonds, but since both kings are criticial they ought both to count.

Btw I wonder if six ace blacky is such a good convention. If we miss two kings slam may still be good if all we need is one of the two finesses to work (or the losers in the side suit with the missing king to be discarded).

Edit: since this auction doesn't make sense we have to default to the Ken Rexford interpretation, see below

[kenrexford]

This is an incredibly bizarre sequence for me.

I'm assuming that 3♦ established a game force. Probably 2♠ did, but 3♦ clearly so. I'll also assume that 3♦ unambiguously established fit.

Assuming this, there is little need and rare cause to bypass all of the cuebidding space between 3♥ and 4NT, especially to have the preumptive weak, describer hand take over. There is a just cause for me, however. Others may have different just causes.

The just cause is to bid that which cannot otherwise be bid. In this sequence, 4♥ for me would later be RKCB for diamonds. A late auction 4NT, such as 4NT after Opener bids 4♦, would sound like some sort of Last Train bid or, more likely, a further cue of the unbiddable cue, hearts (because 4♥ would be RKCB). So, Responder can wait back to cue hearts through 4NT, possibly, but he cannot later bid 4NT for a specific meaning.

The specific meaning here, strangely, would be RKCB for that missing suit (hearts), in a manner of speaking, albeit with diamonds as the focus suit. Thus, Opener is expected to show the heart King and Queen as keys rather than the diamond King and Queen.

I would expect Responder to do this is he has the intermediate diamond honors (K&Q), and hence no need for answers to that question, but a broken heart trick source, like Axxxxx or AJxxx or so. I'd expect probable further values where this sequence is likely a small-or-grand sequence, although strain is still technically a plausible issue.

My specific interpretation may help work out yours. 4NT may be a call intended to do that which for some reason cannot be done if Responder does something else this round through.

[jtfanclub]

I would have said RKCB for hearts, but not with as many words as Ken did.

[Apollo81]

My understanding of RKC is that when ambiguous it is for the most recently bid suit.

[kenrexford]

jtfanclub, on Jun 17 2008, 09:03 AM, said:

I would have said RKCB for hearts, but not with as many words as Ken did.

I usually bill by the hour, you see.

[fred]

To me there is nothing strange about 4NT (as opposed to cuebid).

I would assume that partner had a perfect Blackwood hand (ie he expected my answer(s) to Blackwood to allow him to place the final contract with confidence).

It is dangerous to cuebid when you have a perfect hand for Blackwood with the expectation that "you can always bid Blackwood later". The problem is that sometimes partner, by making the correct bid with his actual hand, will unknowingly cross you up and preempt your ability to ask for Aces. How could partner possibly know (or even consider) that you had a perfect hand for Blackwood but failed to use that convention?

And if partner is forced to cater his cuebids (or lack thereof) to the possibility that you might have a perfect hand for Blackwood, then that can only be bad (possibly very bad) when you are not dealt a perfect Blackwood hand (ie usually!).

The question of which suit should be the keycard suit (or if 6 keycards are in play) is probably a partnership matter more than anything. In my regular partnerships this would be a 6-keycard situation because "2 suits have been bid and raised" (quote from system notes).

But obviously using 6-keycard in *any* situation is hardly mainstream. And even if you play 6-keycard and agree with the "2 suits raised" thing, perhaps in your partnership 3D and/or 3H are not really considered raises.

If not playing 6-keycard I would assume that diamonds, as the "first suit raised" was the keycard suit. As an (irrelevant) aside, to me the "logic of the auction" also suggests diamonds as the keycard suit. This is irrelevant (to me at least) because using the "logic of the auction" to decide which suit is the keycard suit is a recipe for disaster. A serious partnership would rely on (quite possibly imperfect) rules to resolve this problem.

From some of the comments and the vote it sounds like the "last suit bid" is closer to Standard than my "first suit raised".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mikeh]

fred, on Jun 17 2008, 01:46 PM, said:

To me there is nothing strange about 4NT (as opposed to cuebid).

I would assume that partner had a perfect Blackwood hand (ie he expected my answer(s) to Blackwood to allow him to place the final contract with confidence).

It is dangerous to cuebid when you have a perfect hand for Blackwood with the expectation that "you can always bid Blackwood later". The problem is that sometimes partner, by making the correct bid with his actual hand, will unknowingly cross you up and preempt your ability to ask for Aces. How could partner possibly know (or even consider) that you had a perfect hand for Blackwood but failed to use that convention?

And if partner is forced to cater his cuebids (or lack thereof) to the possibility that you might have a perfect hand for Blackwood, then that can only be bad (possibly very bad) when you are not dealt a perfect Blackwood hand (ie usually!).

The question of which suit should be the keycard suit (or if 6 keycards are in play) is probably a partnership matter more than anything. In my regular partnerships this would be a 6-keycard situation because "2 suits have been bid and raised" (quote from system notes).

But obviously using 6-keycard in *any* situation is hardly mainstream. And even if you play 6-keycard and agree with the "2 suits raised" thing, perhaps in your partnership 3D and/or 3H are not really considered raises.

If not playing 6-keycard I would assume that diamonds, as the "first suit raised" was the keycard suit. As an (irrelevant) aside, to me the "logic of the auction" also suggests diamonds as the keycard suit. This is irrelevant (to me at least) because using the "logic of the auction" to decide which suit is the keycard suit is a recipe for disaster. A serious partnership would rely on an (quite possibly imperfect) rules to resolve this problem.

From some of the comments and the vote it sounds like the "last suit bid" is closer to Standard than my "first suit raised".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

agree.. this matter of partnership discussion is central, and the rule that Fred quoted, from his notes, is easy to remember, and easy to apply.

It can become tricky if the auction suggests that one partner's 'raise' was merely a preference, but the given auction, if playing Ingberman or lebensohl, makes 3♦ a clear raise, rather than a preference. 3♥ is also, in my view, a clearly natural bid, expected to deliver Hxx or better (not longer, but maybe better).

[kenrexford]

fred, on Jun 17 2008, 01:46 PM, said:

To me there is nothing strange about 4NT (as opposed to cuebid).

I would assume that partner had a perfect Blackwood hand (ie he expected my answer(s) to Blackwood to allow him to place the final contract with confidence).

Although I agree with the principles that follow this lead-in, I think you are missing something critical here.

I would also, in an undiscussed sequence with a random partner, normally expect this to just be a RKCB call based on a quantitative assessment of the valuation of the hand and Opener's last cue or pattern bid, whichever 3♥ was meant to be.

I would also normally have agreements in place in an established partnership for sequences like this. In this specific sequence, my best established rules lead to a very unusual conclusion, but sometimes that is the case with the best detailed agreements -- holes exist.

All that said, this is a very unusual action because Opener seems to have so many unknowns at this point. With diamonds as presumptive trumps, RKCB is going to give very little in the way of further bids before the penultimate decision. Sure, in theory Responder could have the perfect hand for a 4NT call, but what precisely is that hand? It seems like a VERY strong hand would be required, where the combined HCP range is in the 34+ range. Responder will have lots of critical side Kings and Queens, suggesting that Opener will kind of be semi-forced into having Aces and spaces with secondary diamonds.

Granted, this is somewhat akin to how I ended up describing the bid, just with a different suit for the secondaries. So, I am not disagreeing at all. I just agree that the action is very unexpected. I also am convinced that partnership rules are critical to evaluating the strange development, especially as a ton of people these days would use 4♦ or 4♥ or 4♠ as RKCB for diamonds and not 4NT, which further complicates the WTF problem.

[P_Marlowe]

RKCB for diamonds, the heart fit was not
agreed, in fact may not even exist.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[cherdano]

I think this is RKCB for diamonds and honestly thought this was very obvious before reading the other answers.

[gnasher]

I'd expect this to be natural. 4♣ sets hearts as trumps, without promising a control; 4♦ sets diamonds as trumps. In either case it's inconceivable that partner will go past 4NT.

[peachy]

Two suits have been bid and raised. I don't consider 3H a cuebid, yet. It is showing support. For RKC purposes, the suit bid and raised, or if two suits bid and raised, the last suit. It is possible that the 4NT bidder knows which suit will be trump - if any - but wants to RKC in hearts anyway, for reasons known to him/her only.

[MickyB]

helene_t, on Jun 17 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

Btw I wonder if six ace blacky is such a good convention. If we miss two kings slam may still be good if all we need is one of the two finesses to work (or the losers in the side suit with the missing king to be discarded).

I wonder if RKCB is such a good convention. If we miss the king and queen of trumps, slam may still be good if all we need is one of the two finesses to work

I'm sure there's something better than RKC out there, I just haven't invented it yet!

[manudude03]

MickyB, on Jun 18 2008, 02:07 AM, said:

I wonder if RKCB is such a good convention. If we miss the king and queen of trumps, slam may still be good if all we need is one of the two finesses to work

I'm sure there's something better than RKC out there, I just haven't invented it yet!

A joke I saw on the internet:

"Too Tall Tex has learned to play Roman Keycard Blackwood and is intrigued with the queen-ask. He learns that there are basically two responses: either you have the queen or you don't. Too Tall invents a third third response when he is being asked. The response says: "I don't have the queen, but I know who does."


Anyway, I would take it as RKC for hearts on the basis that I think opener is 4351 and decided that 2S would be more descriptive than an immediate 3H, 4H or splinter.

[helene_t]

MickyB, on Jun 18 2008, 02:07 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 17 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

Btw I wonder if six ace blacky is such a good convention. If we miss two kings slam may still be good if all we need is one of the two finesses to work (or the losers in the side suit with the missing king to be discarded).

I wonder if RKCB is such a good convention. If we miss the king and queen of trumps, slam may still be good if all we need is one of the two finesses to work

I'm sure there's something better than RKC out there, I just haven't invented it yet!

Yes I thought about this too.

From what I have seen of impressive auctions in bridge magazines it seems that spiral scan is the way to go, but I wonder if there is publication bias, i.e. they publish the boards where it worked.

Anyway it doesn't really matter for this auction since responder should be looking for grand so he is interested in whether one kc is missing, not two.

BTW, if this auction is produced by a pair of non-experts, I think RKC for hearts is more sensiblethan RKC for diamonds since responder could have bid 4♦ to insist on diamonds, while it is less clear how hearts could be set as trump in a forcing way. I suppose 4♣ would be a cue for hearts and maybe 3♠ as well, but with a pick-up p whom I expected to understand RKC but maybe not to understand cuebids I would be more likely to use RKC here if I had hearts in mind than if it was diamonds.

[P_Marlowe]

helene_t, on Jun 18 2008, 04:19 AM, said:

<snip>
BTW, if this auction is produced by a pair of non-experts, I think RKC for hearts is more sensiblethan RKC for diamonds since responder could have bid 4♦ to insist on diamonds, while it is less clear how hearts could be set as trump in a forcing way. I suppose 4♣ would be a cue for hearts and maybe 3♠ as well, but with a pick-up p whom I expected to understand RKC but maybe not to understand cuebids I would be more likely to use RKC here if I had hearts in mind than if it was diamonds.

Hi,

instead of 2S opener could have bid 3H, 4H, a splinter,
4D, RKCB for hearts the round before.
I am pretty sure, that at least one of those bids would
have described openers hand pretty well, ... if he has a
fit for hearts.

Please keep in mind, opener just opened on the 1 level.

If you are non expert, you have may have a problem setting
diamonds in a forcing way (without by passing 3NT), but
hearts wont be a problem.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[FrancesHinden]

helene_t, on Jun 18 2008, 10:19 AM, said:

From what I have seen of impressive auctions in bridge magazines it seems that spiral scan is the way to go, but I wonder if there is publication bias, i.e. they publish the boards where it worked.

It's more that they publish the boards where it comes up.

I've been playing a very complex forcing raise method with one partner for over 10 years. We play more hands at the table than we bid from magazines, but I can only think of three at-the-table auctions where it has ever come up in its full glory and there's usually one a month in the bidding challenge articles.

There's one in the June BW. We used the full system including spiral scan to get to a cold grand idenitfying singleton A opposite KQx for two discards. But I don't think I've ever spiralled for the third side-suit queen (which this was) at the table.

[kenrexford]

On the RKCB issue --

I personally find that 4NT as RKCB has limited utility in many auctions that have a low start to the GF and a low agreement on strain, largely because a ton of information is already exchanged, where sometimes the key card situation internal to trumps, for example, is already known. Thus, I agree with the general premise that there should be more discussion of alternatives to RKCB, at least for some auctions.

It still pays in tight auctions, however, where information exchange in minimal. Whether it is ideal in that situation or not is another matter.

[ArcLight]

1. Opener jump shifted (not reveresed) so we are in agame forcing auction. OPener is at least 4+♦ and 4+♠ (though I think its probaly 5+♦).

2. A ♦ fit was established by responders second bid.

3. I would not assume that opners ♥ bid is agreeing hearts, he has no assurance that responder has length in hearts.

Therefor 4NT is RKCBW for ♦.