[bluecalm]

Imo his bidding is ok'ish/lucky and we screw up. Above all though it's partnership fault. The 6C call was misunderstood.
I still think default should be ask for 3rd round control but maybe I am biased as this is what people in my country often play.

[cherdano]

bluecalm, on 2012-June-08, 06:06, said:

The 6C call was misunderstood.
I still think default should be ask for 3rd round control but maybe I am biased as this is what people in my country often play.

I know this as a standard after RKCB. But here we would have no way to confirm all keycards ("to ask for kings") if 6♣ asks for third round control. You always need the cheapest step to be queen ask, and the 2nd cheapest to be the king ask.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

mgoetze, on 2012-June-08, 04:36, said:

I guess noone except Codo and possibly gwnn agrees with my partner's bidding? How would you have bid it?

---

North has to realize that Exclusion is not the way to go with this hand.
Even if South shows only ONE key card after "regular RKC ", and let's say it is the ♦Ace ( thus missing the ♥ Ace ) , slam should still be on because of the point count. so, you won't get to the grand if Opener shows only 1 Ace .

But let's see what happens on this hand

The "regular RKC" should be 4C! = RKC for ♠ ( part of the Baze convention after Stayman ) .

South
1NT - 2C
2S - 4C!
4NT ( 2 + ♠Q ) - ??
......................Now 5C would be K-ask ( cheapest specific-K replies )
......................And 5D, 5H, 6C would be 3rd Rnd Ctrl-ask in the respective bid suit

Sooo, after - 6C
??
.. 6S = no 3rd Rnd ♣Ctrl
.. 7S = x x doubleton ♣
..6NT = ♣Q
.. 7C = ♣Q J

[cherdano]

What does this prove? RKCB will always work out better than EKCB when partner shows all the aces! You know more, and you know it at a lower level. Meanwhile, RKCB gives up any hope of finding grand opposite the ♥A without the ♦A - which may well be the best chance for a grand.

[kenrexford]

This auction seems to scream for an understanding that no one seems to recognize, which is rather shocking.

Responder started with 5♦ as Exclusion RKCB, and we responded 5♠. As Justin noted, 5NT seems obviously to be the Queen-ask. As Justoin also noted, 6♣ would seem to be the King-ask.

Where this breaks down, though, is in how you respond to this King-ask. You have three calls available:

6♦
6♥
6♠

Obviously, 6♠ should deny any King.

Obviously, as well, 6♥ should show the heart King and an inability to bid 6♦, whatever that would show.

So, in the context of an Exclusion sequence, excluding diamonds, what should 6♦ show?

Obviously, showing the diamond King would be stupid.

Justin seems to assume that 6♦ would show the diamond Ace, but how useful is that card? What -- partner has 7-4-0-2 shape? Please.

6♦, IMO, is the OBVIOUS surrogate for showing the one card that WOULD be useful -- the club King.

This is almost so obvious that it is laughable.

Having these definitions, then, in the actual auction Opener bids 6♠ because he has no round King. Duh. The problem, as some have noted, is that 6♣ was a bad call, and that 5NT stands out as equally obvious. In that sequence, NOW you can show the club King (if you have it) naturally by bidding 6♣, and you also have the ability to show (or deny) the diamond Ace if you want to. Arguably, though, it might make sense to have 6♦ in a Queen-ask 5NT auction show the club Queen, or possibly (preferably) the club Queen equivalent (club Queen, diamond Ace, or club doubleton with extra trumps). Kind of a "not quite grand slam last trian yet" call.

As to the actual auction, assumig the Exclusion start, 5NT would now get a 6♦ rebid by Opener (club Queen, club doubleton with extra trump length, or diamond Ace, but no club King, but in all cases with the trump Queen), which is not enough to know that the grand is making but is close.

A better sequence might be to use the tool of bidding the other major after a Stayman call reveals a major to set trumps. 1NT-2♣-2♠-3♥! as spades agreed, slammish. Opener now cannot cue 3♠ (spades not good enough), cannot bid 3NT (not serious), cannot bid 4♣ (no Ace or King of clubs), but bids 4♦ (diamond control). At that point, Responder could launch EKCB, with some parameters established. The same couple of bids results in the same 5NT Queen-ask. Now, the prior denial of a club control allows Opener to bid 6♣ to show the club Queen or a doubleton Queen with extra trump length (check). Responder can now, knowing that there is a diamond control of some form, bid 6♦ to ask for the diamond Ace, which Opener has (to provide a 13th trick, heart pitch), such that the grand is bid confidently. A very quick cuebidding sequence and the inferences therefrom enables a much better late-auction grand sniff.

(BTW -- I clicked the wrong box in the poll.)

[gnasher]

gwnn, on 2012-June-08, 04:43, said:

With a queen ask from N.

You ask for the queen and find out that he has it. He'll also unhelpfully tell you that he doesn't have ♥K or ♣K, and you'll be at the 6♠ level. All you've done is convert a guess about his spade holding into a guess about his club holding.

Edit: Or maybe he'll tell you that he has ♦A, then you'll bid 6♥ as your only grand slam try, and he'll have no idea what you want.

[gnasher]

mgoetze, on 2012-June-08, 04:36, said:

How would you have bid it?

Using methods that let responder show his club suit, so that when he gets to the point of making a grand slam try opener knows what he's being asked for.

[cherdano]

gnasher, on 2012-June-08, 08:19, said:

You ask for the queen and find out that he has it. He'll also unhelpfully tell you that he doesn't have ♥K or ♣K, that he has the ♦Aand you'll be at the 6♠ 6♦ level. All you've done is convert a guess about his spade holding into a guess about his club holding.

FYP.
Which seems a much better guess to me. If partner has 2 or 4 clubs we are fine. If he has exactly 3 clubs, we need him to have the ♣Q (a 3/7 chance, almost as good as the 4/9 chance in spades), or it we need to rely on the 40% or 50% (if he has ♣J) chance of clubs coming in anyway.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

cherdano, on 2012-June-08, 07:45, said:

What does this prove? RKCB will always work out better than EKCB when partner shows all the aces! You know more, and you know it at a lower level. Meanwhile, RKCB gives up any hope of finding grand opposite the ♥A without the ♦A - which may well be the best chance for a grand.

The origial post has already shown the pitfalls of trying to reach the grand w/Exclusion.

But KenRex's post has given me another idea for this hand:

South
1NT - 2C
2S - 3H! ( anonymous splinter ; also part of the Baze Convention )
3S! ( asks where ) - 4D! ( here )
4H! (cue, and since Responder has the ♥K, he knows 4H! = ♥A ) - 4NT ( RKC for ♠ )
??
Now if Opener only showed 1 key card, Responder knows it is the ♥ Ace and not the ♦A..... but the next bid should be the trump Q-ask.... and the 6S reply = ♠Q but no outside K leaves no room for a 3rd Rnd Ctrl-ask.

[gwnn]

gnasher, on 2012-June-08, 08:19, said:

You ask for the queen and find out that he has it. He'll also unhelpfully tell you that he doesn't have ♥K or ♣K, and you'll be at the 6♠ level. All you've done is convert a guess about his spade holding into a guess about his club holding.

Edit: Or maybe he'll tell you that he has ♦A, then you'll bid 6♥ as your only grand slam try, and he'll have no idea what you want.

Not really - I've converted a guess about his black-suit holdings into a guess about his club holding. That seems to be an improvement.

[mfa1010]

kenrexford, on 2012-June-08, 07:50, said:

This auction seems to scream for an understanding that no one seems to recognize, which is rather shocking.

Responder started with 5♦ as Exclusion RKCB, and we responded 5♠. As Justin noted, 5NT seems obviously to be the Queen-ask. As Justoin also noted, 6♣ would seem to be the King-ask.

Where this breaks down, though, is in how you respond to this King-ask. You have three calls available:

6♦
6♥
6♠

Obviously, 6♠ should deny any King.

Obviously, as well, 6♥ should show the heart King and an inability to bid 6♦, whatever that would show.

So, in the context of an Exclusion sequence, excluding diamonds, what should 6♦ show?

Obviously, showing the diamond King would be stupid.

Justin seems to assume that 6♦ would show the diamond Ace, but how useful is that card? What -- partner has 7-4-0-2 shape? Please.

6♦, IMO, is the OBVIOUS surrogate for showing the one card that WOULD be useful -- the club King.

This is almost so obvious that it is laughable.

Yes, I agree with your logic if you play king ask after exclusion. I never did. Maybe it makes good sense to do so but the situations tend to different after exclusion vs RKC. After exclusion I expect the asker to be a captain with a plan (after RKC 5N is more like a general try). Therefore asker in my methods can just bypass a suit if he needs a king there, and teller will know to head for 7. I feel that going through the motion first of having a bid asking for kings is robbing valuable space in an often cramped sequence, but maybe that is wrong.

Quote

Having these definitions, then, in the actual auction Opener bids 6♠ because he has no round King. Duh. The problem, as some have noted, is that 6♣ was a bad call, and that 5NT stands out as equally obvious. In that sequence, NOW you can show the club King (if you have it) naturally by bidding 6♣, and you also have the ability to show (or deny) the diamond Ace if you want to. Arguably, though, it might make sense to have 6♦ in a Queen-ask 5NT auction show the club Queen, or possibly (preferably) the club Queen equivalent (club Queen, diamond Ace, or club doubleton with extra trumps). Kind of a "not quite grand slam last trian yet" call.

As to the actual auction, assumig the Exclusion start, 5NT would now get a 6♦ rebid by Opener (club Queen, club doubleton with extra trump length, or diamond Ace, but no club King, but in all cases with the trump Queen), which is not enough to know that the grand is making but is close.

I don't see why 5♦-5♠-5N-6♦ should show the club queen rather than the heart queen. And what would you do with no extra card to show but still with the ♠Q? That would be a 6♦ bid for me (except that I play worst-first here in my primary partnership, so I would actually bid 6♠ where 6♦ would be ♠Q + ♣K as in your logic above).

[han]

kenrexford, on 2012-June-08, 07:50, said:

Having these definitions, then, in the actual auction Opener bids 6♠ because he has no round King. Duh. The problem, as some have noted, is that 6♣ was a bad call, and that 5NT stands out as equally obvious. In that sequence, NOW you can show the club King (if you have it) naturally by bidding 6♣, and you also have the ability to show (or deny) the diamond Ace if you want to.

I think that there has to be some call below 6S that shows the spade queen. If 6C and 6H show the kings of resp. clubs and hearts, the only call left is 6D and I think it says nothing about diamonds.

[han]

Sorry, I see that MFA posted similarly.

[han]

gwnn, on 2012-June-08, 08:28, said:

Not really - I've converted a guess about his black-suit holdings into a guess about his club holding. That seems to be an improvement.

Yes indeed. And obviously you don't want to be in 7 when partner does not have the spade queen, but 7 might still be good when partner does not have a second round club control, for example when partner has 4 clubs. Given that only a 3-card suit is bad, and that partner might still have the queen (in which case 7 is nearly cold) or the jack (in which case 7 has ok chances) I think that bidding 7 is clear when partner shows the spade queen, while we would have no clue if we didn't know about the spade queen.

[kenrexford]

mfa1010, on 2012-June-08, 09:03, said:

I don't see why 5♦-5♠-5N-6♦ should show the club queen rather than the heart queen. And what would you do with no extra card to show but still with the ♠Q? That would be a 6♦ bid for me (except that I play worst-first here in my primary partnership, so I would actually bid 6♠ where 6♦ would be ♠Q + ♣K as in your logic above).

The reason for the 6♦ call showing the club queen rather than the heart Queen is as follows:


1. If partner asked for the spade Queen, he only has four or five spades. If he only has four or five spades, then he must have 4+ clubs, but with only four spades he need not even have three hearts (e.g., 4-2-0-7 pattern). Hence, the club Queen is more likely of value than the heart Queen.

2. Because Opener denied four hearts, Opener has only 2-3 hearts, such that the chances of a heart doubleton are greater on average than the chances of a club doubleton, such that again the honor card in clubs is again probably more important.

3. Consistency (if the diamond call shows a club feature in any auction, having it parallel this in other auctions is consistent).



What about no extra card and the spade Queen?

If partner need no extra card except the spade Queen for the grand, then a priori he needed me to have just the heart Ace and the spade Queen for the grand. If that is all that he needed, then the fact that this sequence makes that specific holding impossible to identify means that 5♦ was the wrong start. Maybe cuebidding; maybe something else. If there is no "something else," then you end up in an unresolvable problem. However, the odds that Opener with a strong 1NT has those two cards but cannot show anything else is so remote that catering to that one unusual holding seems strange.

[kenrexford]

han, on 2012-June-08, 09:12, said:

I think that there has to be some call below 6S that shows the spade queen. If 6C and 6H show the kings of resp. clubs and hearts, the only call left is 6D and I think it says nothing about diamonds.

See post above, but a summary. Both 6♣ and 6♥ show the spade Queen with this card. 6♦ shows the spade Queen with (IMO) the club Queen, diamond Ace, or club doubleton. If Opener has ♠QJxxx ♥AQJ ♦KQJ ♣Jxx, he has no bid. But, that is rare. Plus, if Responder needed just the heart Ace and spade Queen, this auction cannot reveal just that, and thus a different sequence would be appropriate OR the hand just cannot be bid. Sacrificing other meanings to handle this one hand seems bad.

[kenrexford]

han, on 2012-June-08, 09:18, said:

Yes indeed. And obviously you don't want to be in 7 when partner does not have the spade queen, but 7 might still be good when partner does not have a second round club control, for example when partner has 4 clubs. Given that only a 3-card suit is bad, and that partner might still have the queen (in which case 7 is nearly cold) or the jack (in which case 7 has ok chances) I think that bidding 7 is clear when partner shows the spade queen, while we would have no clue if we didn't know about the spade queen.

With four clubs, knowing that partner has only four or five spades means that the fourth club is probably a Queen-equivalent. That might be debatable. Of course, a cue sequence earlier would have helped some.

[gnasher]

gwnn, on 2012-June-08, 08:28, said:

Not really - I've converted a guess about his black-suit holdings into a guess about his club holding. That seems to be an improvement.

I suppose it depend on what 6♣ means in the original auction. In my world 6♣ is asking for third-round club control, so it's a straight swap of a guess about spades for a guess about clubs.

[dake50]

Would 5NT ask Kings? Partner didn't do that.
I play 6C asks 1st, 2nd, 3rd control in Clubs.
Since partner took so much space, he can't need
1st nor 2nd (could have found that lower). I do have C-3rd.
7S.

[gszes]

my hand is almost as horrific as it can get i started with
a 15 -17 nt hand and appear to have found p with a 6403
(using stayman then not asking about spade Q). If we are
right my Spade QJ Dia QJ (and probably A) are worthless.
The only redeeming feature in my hand is the doubleton
club and that is uselss because anything the doubleton
will take care of so will the dia A.


The bidding has turned my once proud 1n opener into this:

xxxxx
AJT
Axxx
xx

P already knows about the heart A and it was not enough to
go to 7. The dubious doubleton club value and the JT of hearts
nahhhhhhhhhhhh I am bidding 6s cant imagine my once proud
hand can produce 7. I have some sympathy for those that want
to bid 6d (to show the A) and I would agree with that if my spade
Q were in hearts instead.