third round control ask or suggestion to play?

[han]

Imagine a 2/1 auction like:

 

1H - 2C

2H - 3H

4D - 4NT

5H - 6C

 

5H showed 2 keycards without the queen. 6C can have two different meanings: It is either a try for 7 asking for a third round control, or it is a suggestion to play 6C. What should it be? Can you formulate a good general rule? If you play this as choice of strain, should opener often correct to 6H? Could you give a hand where it is close?

 

When a similar (but different) auction came up, the 6C bidder wanted to play there, opener jumped to 7H with xx in clubs, off the ace of hearts. Fortunately this was a practice bidding session.

[whereagles]

I play these bids such as this 6♣ as "bid 7 if you have some help in clubs". Dunno if it's the best, but it certainly is playable :)

 

In the same context, I like 5NT as "bid 7 if you have extras of any sort".

[pclayton]

We play a direct 6x as asking for 3rd round control. I don't think you can play 6♣ after raising hearts directly so early.

[Apollo81]

My partner and I play that such a bid is control asking unless it's a logical alternative slam.

 

I would not consider 6♣ a logical alternative given the 3♥ bid.

[Echognome]

This depends somewhat on your style. Given that responder could have cuebid the ♣Q along the way (since it was the 2/1 suit), looking for xx or x opposite seems a strange way to go. I would take it as choice of slams, but I certainly wouldn't make the bid without discussion.

 

One way to play it is that if you agreed hearts and keycarded for them, then you are playing in hearts. If you were unsure of the right strain, you could go through 5NT pick-a-slam. If you don't like that because it's a blunt instrument, then how do you think partner is going to judge the hand any better over the given auction?

[mikeh]

I would agree with those who say that 6♣ cannot be a suggestion to play there.

 

The issue is whether, on this type of auction, it is more useful to use 6♣ as a try for grand in ♥s or as an alternative contract. Whle neither use will arise with any frequency, it is easier to come up with a hand needing ♣ help for grand, and consistent with the auction, than it is to come up with a hand on which 6♣ will be appreciably better than 6♥... and yet would be bid the same way.

 

We can all see that, as an example, Ax KQx Kxx AKJxx needs the ♣Q to count 13 tricks... and finding out that partner had or did not have the ♠K would be irrelevant.

 

BTW, it is an interesting question as to what help opener ought to have: would xx be enough? Opener may be expecting to be able to ruff dummy's suit good, but responder may be needing to count on running the suit from the top to arrive at 13 tricks.

 

At a high level, opener should be able to distinguish the help he holds. 6♥ would be xxx or equivalent (as good as Jxx), while he has lots of room to distinguish between xx and Qx(x). I confess I have no agreement in any of my partnerships.

 

For me, a holding of Qx(x) is far more likely to be what partner is looking for: far more powerful, so I would only commit to the grand with that holding.

 

Maybe a slow 6♥ shows xx? B) :o :D :o

[mikeh]

This depends somewhat on your style.  Given that responder could have cuebid the ♣Q along the way (since it was the 2/1 suit), looking for xx or x opposite seems a strange way to go.  I would take it as choice of slams, but I certainly wouldn't make the bid without discussion.

 

One way to play it is that if you agreed hearts and keycarded for them, then you are playing in hearts.  If you were unsure of the right strain, you could go through 5NT pick-a-slam.  If you don't like that because it's a blunt instrument, then how do you think partner is going to judge the hand any better over the given auction?

I cannot imagine that opener should cue the ♣Q over 3♥! Especially with the ♦ control... cue 4♣ and what the heck does responder do with slam interest and no ♦ control?

 

Yes, you could play that 4♦ is last train... but look at the situation you have created. Responder has no idea which ♣ card you have shown.... If he has KJxxxx or Axxxx, it may be important for him to know that, even to determine if he is interested in slam. And opener, who knows that responder is guessing about the ♣ bid, is now guessing about the ♦ bid.

 

I don't mind last train when we have no good alternative, but to double up on the ambiguity on what is otherwise a pretty straightforward sequence smacks of science gone wild :o

[cherdano]

This depends somewhat on your style.  Given that responder could have cuebid the ♣Q along the way (since it was the 2/1 suit), looking for xx or x opposite seems a strange way to go.  I would take it as choice of slams, but I certainly wouldn't make the bid without discussion.

 

One way to play it is that if you agreed hearts and keycarded for them, then you are playing in hearts.  If you were unsure of the right strain, you could go through 5NT pick-a-slam.  If you don't like that because it's a blunt instrument, then how do you think partner is going to judge the hand any better over the given auction?

I cannot imagine that opener should cue the ♣Q over 3♥! Especially with the ♦ control... cue 4♣ and what the heck does responder do with slam interest and no ♦ control?

Hmm, this is part of the cuebidding style advocated by Fred in his articles on "Improving 2/1 GF". Cue in partner's 2/1 suit show A, K or Q, cue in our own 2/1 suit show 2 out of AKQ. Cues in other suits show A or K, and all cues are up the line. Of course you can create counter-examples, but quite often it is great for responder to know that partner has any helpful card in his suit. (If you have a suit of Jxxxx then you shouldn't have made a 2/1 in the first place :o )

 

I also don't see your problem in this specific auction. Of course there are hands that need specifically to know about diamond control AND can't bid 4♠ AND can't infer a diamond control from partner's slam cooperation, but your example of ♣KJxxx is an excellent example of a suit that is worth 4 tricks opposite Qx, but very little opposite xx, and it is not clear to me which will come up more often.

 

Arend

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I would say it is a choice of slam or it may even to play.

You have 5S available to ask for specific kings, and you

have 5NT, what ever that means (e.g. pick a slam) and

you have 6D available as a general grand slam try.

 

How do you set clubs? Depending on your 2/1 flavour,

3C can be passed, and 4C kills a lot of room.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[joshs]

I play:

A rebid of either players first bid suit at the 6 level, is always an offer to play even after rkc in another suit- unless another grand slam try has already been made. Yes it means that your grand slam bidding is less exact, but in exchange you get to the best small slam a lot more often.

 

So 1S-2H-2S-4N-5H-6H is an offer to play hearts instead of spades (partnership is probably missing the SQ, but responder has solid hearts, this bid is almost always passed)

While,

1S-2H-2S-4N-5H-5N-6C-6H is a grand slam try. If the player was merely interested in choice of slams they wouldn't have bid 5N to try for a grand....

 

Josh

[pclayton]

I play:

A rebid of either players first bid suit at the 6 level, is always an offer to play even after rkc in another suit- unless another grand slam try has already been made. Yes it means that your grand slam bidding is less exact, but in exchange you get to the best small slam a lot more often.

 

So 1S-2H-2S-4N-5H-6H is an offer to play hearts instead of spades (partnership is probably missing the SQ, but responder has solid hearts, this bid is almost always passed)

While,

1S-2H-2S-4N-5H-5N-6C-6H is a grand slam try. If the player was merely interested in choice of slams they wouldn't have bid 5N to try for a grand....

 

Josh

This is a much different auction than Han's. In Josh's, spades were never supported, in Han's, hearts were supported early.

 

I think Josh's agreement is sensible, if you don't have trump agreement early on.

 

On a side note, I think the auction: 1♠ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4N should be key card for hearts, not spades. This is akin to the strong jump shift sequence of 1x - 2y - 2/3 anything - 4N which is key card for responder's suit.

[han]

I don't remember the actual hands, but it shouldn't be too hard to come up with sensible hands where responder wants to play 6C. How about these:

How about these hands:

 

Jxx

AJxxx

AKx

xx

 

KQx

Kxx

x

AKQxxx

 

The specific auction wasn't so important to me, but these hands seem reasonably consistent with the auction.

[Apollo81]

I don't remember the actual hands, but it shouldn't be too hard to come up with sensible hands where responder wants to play 6C. How about these:

How about these hands:

 

Jxx

AJxxx

AKx

xx

 

KQx

Kxx

x

AKQxxx

 

The specific auction wasn't so important to me, but these hands seem reasonably consistent with the auction.

That North hand is so far from a 2♥ rebid...

 

I guess you didn't rebid 2NT since it shows extras or something....if I was for some reason prevented from bidding 2NT then I would bid 2♦

 

Of course if it is your style to bid that 2♥ on a crappy 5 card suit, then I guess 6♣ is a logical alternative.

[Finch]

Once responder has taken control via Blackwood, I don't think he can suddenly change horses and ask partner's opinion. If he wanted to offer clubs or hearts, I think he needed to jump to 6C over 4D.

[kenrexford]

This depends somewhat on your style.  Given that responder could have cuebid the ♣Q along the way (since it was the 2/1 suit), looking for xx or x opposite seems a strange way to go.  I would take it as choice of slams, but I certainly wouldn't make the bid without discussion.

 

One way to play it is that if you agreed hearts and keycarded for them, then you are playing in hearts.  If you were unsure of the right strain, you could go through 5NT pick-a-slam.  If you don't like that because it's a blunt instrument, then how do you think partner is going to judge the hand any better over the given auction?

I cannot imagine that opener should cue the ♣Q over 3♥! Especially with the ♦ control... cue 4♣ and what the heck does responder do with slam interest and no ♦ control?

 

Yes, you could play that 4♦ is last train... but look at the situation you have created. Responder has no idea which ♣ card you have shown.... If he has KJxxxx or Axxxx, it may be important for him to know that, even to determine if he is interested in slam. And opener, who knows that responder is guessing about the ♣ bid, is now guessing about the ♦ bid.

 

I don't mind last train when we have no good alternative, but to double up on the ambiguity on what is otherwise a pretty straightforward sequence smacks of science gone wild :(

What 6♣ means should probably be discussed, but my inclination is toward choice-of-slams, for the reasoning suggested previously.

 

That said, the question was brought up as to the problem with cuebidding the club Queen while holding the diamond control. This is a recurring problem -- the two-touching-controls scenario. Last Train in some cases resolves this problem, as suggested. However, sometimes it does not.

 

For this reason, one thought process that helps. Serious 3NT, if used, or perhaps the negative inference from Non-Serious 3NT, can "solve" the issue. In many instances, the inference to a Serious 3NT call is that it infers "more stuff" than can be shown by simply cuebidding out. If one cuebid will tell the tale, or two that will be possible, then cuebid. If not, such as the touching-cues problem, use 3NT. Partner will suspect touching controls.

 

A simple example. Suppose spades are trumps. If, at the point where you can bid 3NT, one cuebid (maybe 4♦) will tell your tale, bid 4♦. If two cuebids will be needed, 4♣ and 4♥, and partner will need to cue 4♦ (or is very likely to cue 4♦), then cue 4♣ as prepared to cue 4♥ and, again, tell your tale. If, however, the two cues necessary to tell your tale are 4♣/4♦ or 4♦/4♥, you are stuck unless you use 3NT.

 

This "I'm stuck" practical definition of a Serious 3NT cue, once understood, has extreme value in many problem auctions. Here, Opener failed to cue 3♠, so he holds no spade control. The only touching cues are 4♣/4♦. He cued 4♦, directly denying a club honor. Had he cued 4♣, it would infer lacking a diamond control also, because he would normally bid 3NT with a club honor AND a diamond control, as this is the "unbiddable" holding.

 

When this inference arises, when it is a strong or weak inference, is difficult to articulate, but you know it when you see it.

[the hog]

Opener has already denied A K or Q of C by failing to bid 4C.

[the hog]

This depends somewhat on your style.  Given that responder could have cuebid the ♣Q along the way (since it was the 2/1 suit), looking for xx or x opposite seems a strange way to go.  I would take it as choice of slams, but I certainly wouldn't make the bid without discussion.

 

One way to play it is that if you agreed hearts and keycarded for them, then you are playing in hearts.  If you were unsure of the right strain, you could go through 5NT pick-a-slam.  If you don't like that because it's a blunt instrument, then how do you think partner is going to judge the hand any better over the given auction?

I cannot imagine that opener should cue the ♣Q over 3♥! Especially with the ♦ control... cue 4♣ and what the heck does responder do with slam interest and no ♦ control?

 

Yes, you could play that 4♦ is last train... but look at the situation you have created. Responder has no idea which ♣ card you have shown.... If he has KJxxxx or Axxxx, it may be important for him to know that, even to determine if he is interested in slam. And opener, who knows that responder is guessing about the ♣ bid, is now guessing about the ♦ bid.

 

I don't mind last train when we have no good alternative, but to double up on the ambiguity on what is otherwise a pretty straightforward sequence smacks of science gone wild B)

With slam interest opener would bid 3NT serious. 4D shows a moderate hand without a C card, but with A or K of D.

[mikeh]

This depends somewhat on your style.  Given that responder could have cuebid the ♣Q along the way (since it was the 2/1 suit), looking for xx or x opposite seems a strange way to go.  I would take it as choice of slams, but I certainly wouldn't make the bid without discussion.

 

One way to play it is that if you agreed hearts and keycarded for them, then you are playing in hearts.  If you were unsure of the right strain, you could go through 5NT pick-a-slam.  If you don't like that because it's a blunt instrument, then how do you think partner is going to judge the hand any better over the given auction?

I cannot imagine that opener should cue the ♣Q over 3♥! Especially with the ♦ control... cue 4♣ and what the heck does responder do with slam interest and no ♦ control?

 

Yes, you could play that 4♦ is last train... but look at the situation you have created. Responder has no idea which ♣ card you have shown.... If he has KJxxxx or Axxxx, it may be important for him to know that, even to determine if he is interested in slam. And opener, who knows that responder is guessing about the ♣ bid, is now guessing about the ♦ bid.

 

I don't mind last train when we have no good alternative, but to double up on the ambiguity on what is otherwise a pretty straightforward sequence smacks of science gone wild B)

With slam interest opener would bid 3NT serious. 4D shows a moderate hand without a C card, but with A or K of D.

I'm puzzled by this comment. I saw nothing in the original post that supports this inference. If 4♦ bore this meaning, I would have expected it to be announced. If it didn't, then your argument is fallacious.

[the hog]

Ok Mike, I came to this post late. You are right in that the original poster did not suggest that possibility, and having read many of his posts before, I am surprised that this is not part of what he plays. However it makes sense to me and this is what it would mean in my partnerships. Yes, this has no bearing on the original post.

[kenrexford]

As the cuebidding style was not defined in any manner at all, the question seems ultimately doomed to inability to answer. If this, then this. If that, then that. "It depends" must be the sole answer.

[inquiry]

Imagine a 2/1 auction like:

 

1H - 2C

2H - 3H

4D - 4NT

5H - 6C

 

5H showed 2 keycards without the queen. 6C can have two different meanings: It is either a try for 7 asking for a third round control, or it is a suggestion to play 6C. What should it be? Can you formulate a good general rule? If you play this as choice of strain, should opener often correct to 6H? Could you give a hand where it is close?

 

When a similar (but different) auction came up, the 6C bidder wanted to play there, opener jumped to 7H with xx in clubs, off the ace of hearts. Fortunately this was a practice bidding session.

What should (6♣) be? Can you formulate a good general rule? If you play this as choice of strain, should opener often correct to 6H? Could you give a hand where it is close?

 

The three choices for 6♣ are

1. specific king asking bid ala Kantar RKCB book
   
2. To play (not a choice of contracts)
   
3. Choice of contracts
   

One can forumulate simple rules. Here are few you might consider....

1. After trump agreement then RKCB, all new suit bids (other than queen ask) are specific king asking bid
   
2. If after trump agreement and RKCB, if the asker bids his own (unsupported) suit at the six level, it is always to play
   
3. If after trump agreement and RKCB, if the key card asker bids his own unsupported suit it is choice of contract
   

The question is would such simple rules be the most effective approach. I think this specific auction (assuming you use the 4♦ bid denies Spade A or K, and denies club A,K or Q) provides a lot of options. Here, 5♠ would no longer be useful as specific king ask, nor would 5NT be useful as other king ask, since one could in theory try 6♦ as the asking bid. So at this point, you have 5♠, 5NT, and 6♦ as possible grand slam probes or even pick a contract type thing (well not 6♦.

 

So here you go, some options. 5♠ could be looking for doubleton spade, 5NT could be pick a slam, 6♣ could be TO PLAY, and 6♦ could be either specific asking bid or Josephine looking for grand slam with a six card suit (to make up for a missing trump queen). I can't imagine a doubleton spade would EVER be the key on this auction, so we can forget about 5♠ asking anything in spades. So I would think the use of 5♠ to ask about the suit you can not ask about (clubs) would be better. This looks for club legnth. I would suggest using 5NT as pick a slam, and 6♣ as to play. I think the extra heart issue would be more important than the diamond KING for grand slam try, so I would use 6♦ as Josephine.

 

The problem with this, however, is that this is a very specific auction where opener knows that responder lacks cards in not one, but two suits (both blacks). So I am not sure you can come up with a specifc (and easy) rule to handle all of these.

 

I think if I had to come up with a specific, simple rule, I would say that an immediate rebid by the blackwood investigator in his own suit at the six level is to play.

[SoTired]

6C is part of RKC definition. It guarantees all 6 keys and asks for 3rd round club control. Replies are:

6H = ♣xxx

6N = ♣Q(x)

7C = ♣QJ(x)

7H = ♣xx or shorter

7N = All 6 keys and ♣AK is all I need to know

[kenrexford]

The issue of whether Opener holds the club Queen seems resolved if you use the cuebidding style many of us are assuming. Not there.

 

If your concern is about what to do with the club Queen and a diamond control, and the interplay between Serious 3NT and LTTC is bothering you, the "solution" as always depends upon style choices. My personal preference is for Serious 3NT to have certain expected parameters as defaults and LTTC certain parameters as defaults. Circumstantial specifics derive from the needs of an auction as assessed using these general defaults.

 

For instance, Serious 3NT tends toward good trumps when good trumps are not otherwise biddable, but LTTC tends towards seeking outside controls; thus, one could say that there is a tendency for 3NT to show internals but LTTC to ask about externals. Another tendency is for 3NT to show firsts and slow to show seconds (first-round control versus second-round control). Another tendency is for 3NT to show touchings and LTTC therefore to ask about non-touchings. Another tendency is for the various choices to be selected as it best facilitates future anticipated auctions.

 

So, when deciding what inference exists in a given auction, these tendencies and the specific auction, holdings, needs, etc., tailor understanding.

 

In the given auction, Opener has two primary possible problems -- inability to show good trumps and inability to show touching controls. A discussion of tendencies helps to conclude, if adopting or agreeing with my assessment of tendencies, that 3NT tends to imply good trumps and that LTTC would tend to ask if the club Queen was joined by a diamond control.

 

Thus, 4♦ can reliably be interpreted as denying the club Queen by the rules of cuebidding espoused to date, without concern for the touching-control problem because LTTC would "solve" that problem.

[mikeh]

The three choices for 6♣ are

1. 
    
    
   
2. specific king asking bid ala Kantar RKCB book
    
   
3. To play (not a choice of contracts)
    
   
4. Choice of contracts
    
   

Sorry, Ben... your list is significantly deficient. I would add (and would personally use): do you hold the ♣Q?

 

Some might go further (as did one of the players involved in the original hand) and say, instead of 'do you have the Q?', 'do you have 3rd round control?'

 

Inmy view, as I explained in my first post, the 'do you have the Q?' question is often going to be more sensible than any of the others.

 

Your list:

 

1. specific king asking: most keycarders use specific king responses to 5N. Those who don't, probably should learn. We don't need 6♣ to ask for the K of ♣: we bid 5N. The only exception would be if we needed to know about the ♣K in order to choose between 6♥ and 6N... and couldn't risk 5N since partner is allowed to bid 7 with an unusual hand. But that has to be a narrow target, and not one to which I would give any priority at all.

 

2. to play. If we were hell-bent on 6♣, we should not have made slamming noises in ♥s! Surely, if our ♣ suit is that solid, we could have and should have bid differently? Even if 3♣ over 2♥ is non-forcing, as it is for many, 4♣ is forcing and shows the suit type that could insist upon 6♣ rather than 6♥. We denied AKQJxxx in ♣s by our 3♥ bid... more accurately, we denied a hand that wished to insist upon ♣s at the expense of ♥s.

 

3. choice of contracts: a 'correctable' suggestion to play. This one makes the most sense, in that it is possible to construct hands on which the disappointing discovery of the missing ♥Q may make it safer to play in ♣ IF opener has a partial fit, such as xx. The argument against this is primarily one of relative frequency/utility/reward.

 

If we consider that the two logical alternatives are pass/correct or do you have the ♣Q, then cue-bidding styles come into play. If you believe that opener should cue the ♣Q over 3♥, rather than the ♦A, then go no further... clearly there is no need for 'do you hold the ♣Q?', since the answer is already known to be 'no'.

 

If, on the other hand, with xx AJ10xxx AKx Qx, you'd bid 4♦ (as I would), then we have a compelling need to ask about the ♣Q holding a hand such as Ax KQx xx AKJ10xx: we can bid and claim 7N if he has that card... and how else can we find it?

 

The alternative, choice of slams, is a very narrow target: it presupposes that we have used keycard (rather than continue to describe our hand) and, after gettig nwhat cannot have been an unexpected response, we have discovered that 6♥ is relatively unattractive and we have a good enough ♣ suit to suggest that as an alternative strain and we will find that partner can and does make an accurate assessment of that suggestion..... that he passes 6♣ which then proceeds to make while 6♥ goes down. Now that is a very narrow target indeed.

 

Put another way: if the 5♥ response tells you that 6♥ fails, pass 5♥. If the 5♥ response tells you that 6♥s is an 'iffy' proposition, don't try to toss the coin and have it land on its edge by offering 6♣ as a spot. What if your AKQxxx opposite xx runs into a 4-1 trump break while 6♥ is cold? What if both contracts make and you lose imps by being in the minor? You are aiming at a low-frequency. small edge whereas my suggestion aims to reach an otherwise unreachable grand: low frequency, large edge.

[inquiry]

On this auction, I will never hold the club queen, as I cue-bid that after 3♥ if I had it.... as the hog and a few others.

 

I understand that there are a few different ways to cue-bid... ACEs before kings, or Aces and kings up the line, or Aces and kings up the line PLUS queen in partners known five + card suit. For me, 2♣ is 5+ suit, and I would cue-bid the queen if I had it in the up the line format.

 

No I did not bid this hand with Hannie.

 

My List of Bids wree quite specific to this auction where 4♦ denied Ace or King of spade, Ace, King or Queen of clubs. I use 5NT almost always as king asking bid. Here, it seems, well, unnecessary.

 

My answer was to try to gather in the logical options, given the rules laid out above for the possible holdings after teh 4♦ bid the way I play it. I understand not everyone follows teh same cue-bidding rules I do. If opener COULD have the club queen, then 6♣ simply has to ask for the third round control of clubs. I have no problem with that.

 

I agree choice of contracts is a very narrow target. I would prefer 6♣ to be to play instead of choice, and I think this is what I said. I only added that on some auctions you maybe able to mix-and-match a number of options if you want to set up specific bridge logic agreements.