ralph23 Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 >>>>Ralph, just because you don't have the trump queen doesn't mean that you should not bid a small slam. Well of course that's true. Who ever suggested differently? You could have all five key cards and lack the Queen, and slam would be correct. All the Bulletin article sez is, if you are missing the Queen AND a Keycard, then slam's not so hot. No one in this thread has ever suggested that's it right to give up on slam JUST BECAUSE you are missing the Queen. The Bulletin did suggest that it's not a great slam missing a Keycard AND the Queen. >>>I found an article on the net which proclaims that the queen ask does guarantee possession of all 5 key cards: As for the bridge guys article proclamation, you'll have to quote the proclamation to me and cite where it is in the article. I can't find it, nor can I find anything there supporting the proposition that the Queen ask promises all five key cards. But I didn't look very hard. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 I would appreciate it if anyone could show me an example of a Roman-Keycard Blackwood auction in high-level competition where there was a Queen-ask made by a player who knows that a keycard is missing. I did it just the other day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 I am very surprised that the bridgeguys article agrees with ArtK78's claim, but the article is generally rather bad. None of the example hands match the bidding, and the logic in example 4 just doesn't make any sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 Arend, The article is rather hideous and stinky - in serious need of deodorizer. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 As for the bridge guys article proclamation, you'll have to quote the proclamation to me and cite where it is in the article. I can't find it, nor can I find anything there supporting the proposition that the Queen ask promises all five key cards. But I didn't look very hard. :D From the Bridge Guy's Article: "In the following example: North South 1♣ 1♠ 4♠ 4NT 5♣ 5♦ North has informed his partner that he holds three Key Cards. However, since North can not show with his bid whether he has the Queen of trump or not, this remains an unknown factor. When South bids 5 Diamonds, the next higher-ranking suit, South is informing his partner that the partnership holds all five Key Cards, but does not possess the Queen of trump. South's bid of 5 Diamonds is asking North to bid the number of Kings he holds, and is asking North at the same time whether or not he holds the Queen of trump." The point is not whether the Bridge Guy's Article is good or not (I don't agree with the statement that the 5♦ bid asked for the number of kings and the queen of trump - it should ask for the queen of trump and only if the answer is yes do you get to kings, and, in that event, it should be specific kings, not number of kings). The point is that there is a school of thought in the bidding of RKCB in which the queen-ask guarantees possession of all five key cards and is, therefore, a grand-slam try. I believe that Kantar follows this school of thought. I know that I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 It is clearly NOT universal that the Queen-ask does not guarantee all of the key-cards. OK, this thread is proof-by-example (and I've learnt something). The convention was written so that the Queen-ask does promise all of the key cards and is a grand-slam try. That is the way that I play it, and that is the way Kantar wrote it up in his books on Roman Key Card Blackwood. Kantar, "Roman Keycard Blackwood"Page 18 (in my edition), in the section "The queen ask after major suit agreement""A queen-ask means one keycard, at most, is missing." followed by, page 20, the following hand: OpenerAKJ5AAKJ854KQ Responder10863KJ94332J10 2C - 2D3D - 3H3S - 4S4NT - 5D (0)5H (Q ask) - 5S (no)Pass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 Thanks Frances, I am glad to hear that Kantar isn't thatcrazy. Probably Artk78 had it confused with the 5N king ask (which promises all keycards for everyone I know). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 I would appreciate it if anyone could show me an example of a Roman-Keycard Blackwood auction in high-level competition where there was a Queen-ask made by a player who knows that a keycard is missing. Making a pronouncement that it is quite common is one thing. I want to see an example. The example should come from the final 8 or beyond in a major North American KO championship or WBF KO championship. Red rag to a bull....I looked at the 2001 Bermuda Bowl & Venice Cup Quarter Finals onwards, which was the first WC book that came to hand. Quarter finals, Poland v. India, NS Balicki/Zmudzinski K93KJ107AKQ6A6 J1082AQ62104K104 dealer SouthP 1C1H 2D2S 3H3NT 4NT5C 5D5S 6H it was virtually all artificial, but by the time North bid 4NT hearts had been agreed trumps. 5C= 1 keycard5D = queen ask5S = yes Venice Cup semi-final NS Nehmert/Rauscheid Dealer S1C 1S3D 4S4NT 5C5D 5H6S NorthKQ1094K8Q93532 SouthAJ75QJ62AAKJ10 Interestingly, 3 other pairs had similar starts to the auction but just bid a slam by South over the RKCB response (Pszczola/Kwiecien & Lauria/Versace in the Bermuda Bowl, Cronier/Willard in the VC) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph23 Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 (edited) From the Bridge Guy's Article: "In the following example: North South 1♣ 1♠ 4♠ 4NT 5♣ 5♦ North has informed his partner that he holds three Key Cards. However, since North can not show with his bid whether he has the Queen of trump or not, this remains an unknown factor. When South bids 5 Diamonds, the next higher-ranking suit, South is informing his partner that the partnership holds all five Key Cards, but does not possess the Queen of trump. South's bid of 5 Diamonds is asking North to bid the ***number*** {Ed. !!} of Kings he holds, and is asking North at the same time whether or not he holds the Queen of trump." 5♦ asks for the NUMBER of Kings that the askee holds???? They just gave an example 3 inches above this, where the askee shows a specific King in response to the Q-ask, when he holds both the Queen and an outside King... which is clearly what they meant. But not what they said. Right below this passage that you quote, they give an example of escaping (so-called) to 5 of the major, and say "The bid by South of 5 Spades becomes the escape bid, since South now knows that not all of the 5 Key Cards are in the possession of the partnership. Asking for the Queen of trump then becomes irrelevant." (Emphasis added). In other words, they bail out at the five level, straightaway, because they don't have all five keycards.... We teach beginners better than this!! (NB - Missing only one Kcard, they should ask for the Queen, per the ACBL Bulletin article!!) Bridgeguys are very nice guys, but not very precise in their articulation (or their thought), I fear. Edited August 9, 2007 by ralph23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 FrancesHinden: In the examples you gave from the Bermuda Bowl/Venice Cup, it is clear that these partnerships have the agreement that the queen-ask does not guarantee possession of all of the key cards. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. As for the Kantar quote, is that in his most recent edition? It has been some time since I read the book, and I read the original, not the most recent edition. I will have to find it and see if the one that I have says anything different. I found an article that states that the queen-ask does not guarantee all 5 key cards: http://www.fifthchair.org/archive/conv/Rom...20Blackwood.pdf So, clearly, there are two schools of thought. Some partnerships state that the queen-ask does not guarantee possession of all 5 key cards (perhaps with the exception that Fred set out - that it does if the queen-ask goes beyond 5 of the trump suit) but some partnerships, including all of mine, require that the use of the queen-ask does guarantee possession of all 5 key cards. Does anyone know how Meckwell play this? Or if they even use RKCB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 Why should Queen ask guarantee all 5 key cards ? Sometimes there's room to ask for it and stay at the level if missing the Q ? Sometimes you need to find PD with the Q to have good play for a Small Slam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph23 Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 So, clearly, there are two schools of thought. Well .... maybe it's clear to you. If so, that's great. I don't know that it's at all clear to the rest of us. But putting that aside.....what's the virtue of the BridgeGuys school of thought, compared to the Kantar-Fred-Bridge Bulletin school of thought? The K-F-BB school allows us (1) to stop at 5 when we lack both a keycard and the Queen, and also allows us (2) to still explore for 6 by using the Q-ask, when missing one KCard, and to decide on 5 vs. 6 based on the presence/absence of her majesty. As I understand the Bridgeguys school, you can't do (2), because making the Q-ask is always a GS try. What do you get in return for giving this up? I don't see the trade-off, or indeed any tradeoff.... Esp if you use in the BG school the same set of responses after Q-ask as in the K-F-BB school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 One thing that you get is clarity. How many times have you heard the phrase "Key-Card Blackwood Disaster?" I have seen it so many times in the bridge literature that it makes you wonder if players ever discuss their agreements. For example, if you get a 5♣ or 5♦ response to 4NT, do you know if your partner has 0/3 key cards or 1/4 key cards? How? By the strength shown by his previous bidding? There are dozens of examples in the bridge literature of responder assuming that his partner has 3 or 4 key cards rather than 0 or 1, leaping to a grand slam and going down 3 tricks doubled. There is a very simple solution to this problem that few partnerships use. ALWAYS assume the lower number of key cards shown by the bid and sign off if the partnership does not have enough key cards for slam opposite the lower number of key cards shown by the response. If partner has the higher number of key cards, he MUST bid again - and he does so by answering the next query in the RKCB order as if you had relayed (which would always be the queen-ask). If partner has the higher number of key cards and you do not belong in slam, then you should not have bid 4NT in the first place. So, back to the original point. If one has the agreement that the use of the queen-ask guarantees possession of all 5 key cards, there can be no misunderstanding of how high the partnership can bid. This gives responder the right to leap to a grand slam if he can count 13 tricks on the assumption that the partnership has all of the key cards. There is no ambiguity. I can see the point in the agreement that the queen-ask does not guarantee possession of all of the key cards. I suspect that the number of times a slam decision depends on the knowledge that your side does or does not have the trump queen after you discover that you are missing a key card is small. Note that on the hands shown from the Bermuda Bowl/Venice Cup, a number of partnerships did not bother using the queen-ask. They just bid slam. Perhaps they had the agreement that the queen-ask guaranteed all of the key cards and, since they were off a key card, they could not ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph23 Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 (edited) >>>So, back to the original point. Yes, indeed. That would be good. Let's stick to the point at issue.... >>>If one has the agreement that the use of the queen-ask guarantees possession of all 5 key cards, there can be no misunderstanding of how high the partnership can bid. The K-F-BB school has the agreement (implicitly) that the Q-ask guaratees either 4 or 5 keycards, doesn't it? I.e no one's using the Q-ask if the partnership only has 3,2 or 1 keycards. Would you agree with that proposition? Edited August 9, 2007 by ralph23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 The K-F-BB school has the agreement (implicitly) that the Q-ask guaratees either 4 or 5 keycards, doesn't it? I.e no one's using the Q-ask if the partnership only has 3,2 or 1 keycards. Would you agree with that proposition? Sure. I make it a habit of not bidding slams off 2 or more key cards. My point is that once the queen-ask bid is made, responder has the right, if he can count 13 tricks, to bid the grand slam. Obviously, if the queen-ask does not guarantee possession of all of the key cards, responder cannot do that. In order for responder to have the opportunity to bid a grand slam with the knowledge that the partnership has all of the key cards, the asker is going to have to convey that knowledge to responder. Suppose he doesn't do that? Suppose, after getting a positive response to the queen-ask, the asker just signs off in a small slam, without bidding 5NT or some other follow-up bid confirming possession of all the key cards. Responder, with undisclosed trick taking potential, never has the opportunity to bid the grand. Many times, the response to the queen-ask is a bid at the 6 level. That may be all well and good for the asker, who now signs off in a small slam, never realizing that his partner has extra tricks, and never telling responder that the partnership has all of the key cards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 This thread is amazing................................................................................................................................................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 Does anyone know how Meckwell play this? Or if they even use RKCB? You are really not getting it. 100 % of well known pairs play that a queen ask does not promise all the keycards. No, not 99.9 %. 100 %. If you honestly asked Jeff/Eric which of the "2 schools" they belong to they will ROFL. Seriously, I am not exaggerating. Please understand this. I know you won't and you will write several novels about the "2 schools" but there are not 2 schools. There may be one private kindergarten and the rest of the world. Playing that a queen ask below 5 of your suit promises all keycards has no merit at all, is not logical, has zero following by experts, and is silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph23 Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 Well, the alleged virtue of the BridgeGuys school is that there is no ambiguity about the number of key cards when the RKC bidder makes the Q-ask. We've established that the only ambiguity possible, with the K-F-BB school, is whether the partnership has 4, or 5, keycards. There is no ambiguity about 3 or 2 or whatever. So the horrible imaginings about getting to seven missing 3 keycards aren't pertinent here..... So there are four possibilities: 1. Askee lacks Queen, Asker knows we only have 4 keycards.2. Askee has Queen, Asker knows we only have 4 keycards.3. Askee lacks Queen, Asker knows we have all 5 keycards.4. Askee has Queen, Asker knows we have all 5 keycards. Let's look at each one of these, and see how much we in the K-F-BB School are damaged by this "ambiguity" that the BridgeGuys School is anxious to avoid. 1. We will stop at the five level. Unless Asker has so many trumps that the possession of the Queen is irrelevant, but in that case, Asker should not have asked in the first place. This situation cannot occur in the BG school, because Asker is not allowed to ask. So Asker of the BG School is on a guess of whether the 5 or 6 level is correct. 2. Asker bids 6 and that ends the auction. Again, this situation cannot occur in the BG School and he's on a guess as to whether 5 or 6 is right, as in #1. 3. Asker bids 6 and that ends the auction. Same result in BG School. 4. Asker can bid seven if he's found out all he needs to know from Askee; if not, he can use further bids in the system to try to find out if the grand is correct. Askee is NOT allowed to jump to seven, however. He is so allowed in the BG School. Is this inability of Askee to jump to seven in the K-F-BB School, then, a big detriment to the K-F-BB School?? No. The auction is not over yet. After the Askee's positive response to the Q-ask, Asker will either (i) sign off in 6 of the trump suit, showing that the partnership had exactly 4 keys (i.e. it was case 2 above), or (ii) Asker will do something else. If Asker does something else (case (ii)), then it's obviously a GS Try, and Askee can jump as high as he wants if he has the hand for it, just as he could in the earlier round if the partnership subscribes to the BG School. So to obtain the relative merits, compare #1 and #2 against #4. Well, I'm sure it probably won't convince you to change, but that appears to be the analysis of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 My first time logging in all day and I get treated to this. Art you making me lol. As far as I can tell, one school of thought seems to be you and an article that contradicts even itself, and the other seems to be the rest of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 While I agree with Justin about the non-existence of "two schools" it is worth noting that expert players will often bid a small slam holding a nine-card fit missing the queen and a keycard. The reasoning is that finding the queen is normally a bit over 50% in any case (2-2 or singleton queen) and that a good declarer can improve the odds further (based on opening lead, counting the hand, etc). Things get even better if the missing keycard is the trump king. Since the odds for small slam at IMPs are around 50%, this is a reasonable proposition. With only an eight-card fit, I'd recommend avoiding slam off a keycard plus the trump queen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 I guess it is no use arguing with any of you. You have your opinions, and you are not willing to consider any other argument. So laugh if you like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 6♣ is easy imo. A jump to 4NT is Blacky in the last bid suit, ♠ in this case. So 5♥ is asking for ♠Q and I'll show my ♣K while I'm at it... Btw, a Queen ask doesn't promisse all keycards for me. It just doesn't make sense, and will make sure you miss a lot of good slams. The opportunities for responder bidding grand with extra tricks are just too rare to give up accurate small slam bidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph23 Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 ♣♦♥♠ I wrote Eddie Kantar to see what he thought. Here's the email exchange: Hi Eddie, We're big fans of yours at my house! I don't have ALL your books (sorry), but a lot of them. But .... we have an RKC question. I am hoping you'll be kind enough to answer it. It's pretty straightforward: Does the Queen-ask guarantee the possession of all five (5) keycards (and is it therefore always a grand slam try)? Theory A: Yes, it always guarantees all five of these.Theory B: No, it doesn't. It only guarantees all five keycards if the Queen-asking takes the partnership above five of the trump suit. Then, it's a grand slam try; but not otherwise. Also, do different players subscribe to both theories, i.e. some to one, some to another? Or is one theory so much better than the other, that only one theory has any real merit? Thanks Eddie, and I hope we can join you on a cruise sometime before too long! Keep up all the great work and the great columns in the Bridge Bulletin!! His reply: B is right. It's a grand slam try if the queen-ask is at or above thefive level of the agreed suit. For example, 5H is often the queen-askwhen the response to RKB is 5D, hearts agreed. I don't know how other people play the queen-ask, sorry. However, It seems pretty clear that if the ask is at or above the fivelevel of the agreed suit and the sign-off response is six of theagreed suit WITHOUT the queen, it must be a grand slam try. Eddie Kantar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 Ralph: Thanks for the info directly from Eddie Kantar. That certainly clarifies the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.