4C pass 4D?

[Poky]

4♣* pass 4♦

 

* Disciplined club preempt (usually ♣HHxxxxxx)

[Gerben42]

RKC for me. Similar to 3♣ - 4♦.

[rogerclee]

RKC is my preferred agreement.

[inquiry]

Roman Blackwood if I played 4♣ as this (I use 4♣ as a strong heart preempt)

[Fluffy]

I use 4NT for blackwood, this should be a cue, hoping to find wich singleton does opener have.

[MFA]

Special keycard,

0, 1 -Q, 1 +Q, 2 -Q, 2 +Q, etc.

[hrothgar]

Few comments here:

 

First and foremost, I think that we can rule using 4♦ as some kind of Blackwood variant. You're using an incredibly well defined 4♣ opening. (The opening is so well defined that I wouldn't use it) You've already denies any side suit aces or Kings. You're showing two of the top three club honors. What's Blackwood gonna tell you?

 

It might make sense to use 4N to ask whether opener has the Ace of Clubs. Bidding 5♣ says no. (showing KQxxxxxx). But I'm not going to waste a bid as valuable as 4♦ asking such a meaningless question.

 

What would be VERY useful is having some mechanism to ask about distribution controls. Does opener have

 

xxx

xx

x

or void

 

in a given suit. This is going to be the single most useful information for accurate slam exploration.

 

I'd use 4♦ as a Control Asking bid in Diamonds, 4♥ as a control asking bid in Hearts, and 4♠ as a control asking bid in Spades.

 

It might make sense to use 4♦ to ask for a 3 card major you could either use this with a hand that feared a loser in Hearts or Spades OR a hand that might want to declare 4M rather than 5♣. Personally, I can't think of many hands that would want to table an eight card suit in dummy so I rather have CABs in all three suits.

[MFA]

I don't see how we possibly could sacrifice the natural 4Ms to facilitate slam bidding. If keycarding is unnecessary because of a narrow definition of 4♣ (I'd hate to play like that, but that's another story), then 4♦ could be a "cuebid", asking p to cuebid upwards (4NT is then a cuebid in ♦ for example).

[hrothgar]

I don't see how we possibly could sacrifice the natural 4Ms to facilitate slam bidding. If keycarding is unnecessary because of a narrow definition of 4♣ (I'd hate to play like that, but that's another story), then 4♦ could be a "cuebid", asking p to cuebid upwards (4NT is then a cuebid in ♦ for example).

In all seriousness, what type of hand is going to want to try to stop on a dime and declare 4M opposite an opener whose only redeeming quality is an eight card suit.

 

I can't imagine that anyone will

 

1. Hold a hand where 4M is a better contract than either 4♣ or 5♣

2. Be able to make an informed decision that 4M is a superior contract

 

with any degree of frequency

 

If you honestly believe that you need to be able to declare 4M then you're best course of action is probably to use 4♦ as a puppet to 4♥ and use 4♥ and 4♠ as control asking bids...

 

You'll wrong side the original heart contract and give the opponents a chance at a lead directing double. Then again, given that the bid will never actually be used it can't really hurt you that much. At least you'll still have the CABs available in Hearts and Spades.

[han]

Blackwood.

[pclayton]

Balanced 17 count. Something like xx, KQJx, AKxx, Axx comes to mind.

 

Just kidding.

 

The only sensible use to me is keycard.

[jdonn]

I'm just making this up on the spot, but how about using it as asking for opener's better major? I could certainly imagine that coming in handy. Anyway I would think cuebid or some sort of asking bid about diamonds (essentially two ways of doing the same thing) make by far the most sense.

[xcurt]

The only thing I'm sure about here is that 4NT is natural (or you need another way for responder to become declarer in 4NT).

 

Second most important is the decision between 4N and 5/6/7C when responder has a hand. Even playing 4C shows AK, KQ, or AQ 8th, why can't responder have something like SAK, HAQ, DKQJ, Cxx (make up the rest of the offsuits however you like). You need to know which of the honor holdings partner can have:

 

CKQ -> play 5C

CAQ -> play 5C at IMPs in case C are 3-0; play 4N at matchpoints

CAK -> play a slam

 

Put me down for modified Blacke. Playing 4C specifically shows 2-honors-eighth I would make the responses as listed instead of the usual 0/1-/1+/2-/2+/i should not have preempted in the first place.

 

4H -> missing the A

4S -> missing the K

4N -> does not exist

5C -> missing the Q

 

curt

[han]

I'm just making this up on the spot, but how about using it as asking for opener's better major? I could certainly imagine that coming in handy. Anyway I would think cuebid or some sort of asking bid about diamonds (essentially two ways of doing the same thing) make by far the most sense.

The question wasn't what makes the most sense, it is how you play it.

 

I think shortness ask might be best.

[Apollo81]

The only two treatments I've ever heard of are some sort of blackwood/keycard or shortness asking.

 

I'd play this as RKC since the shortness ask (which I'm sure is better in theory) won't come up enough to make it worth the memory load.

[kenrexford]

None of the above. Closest is "cuebid," but that's not right.

 

4♦, for me, asks partner to cuebid any control (shortness, King, or, dare I say, Ace) if he has one. 4NT by Opener would deny a major control but show a diamond control.

[MFA]

I don't see how we possibly could sacrifice the natural 4Ms to facilitate slam bidding. If keycarding is unnecessary because of a narrow definition of 4♣ (I'd hate to play like that, but that's another story), then 4♦ could be a "cuebid", asking p to cuebid upwards (4NT is then a cuebid in ♦ for example).

In all seriousness, what type of hand is going to want to try to stop on a dime and declare 4M opposite an opener whose only redeeming quality is an eight card suit.

 

I can't imagine that anyone will

 

1. Hold a hand where 4M is a better contract than either 4♣ or 5♣

2. Be able to make an informed decision that 4M is a superior contract

 

with any degree of frequency

 

If you honestly believe that you need to be able to declare 4M then you're best course of action is probably to use 4♦ as a puppet to 4♥ and use 4♥ and 4♠ as control asking bids...

 

You'll wrong side the original heart contract and give the opponents a chance at a lead directing double. Then again, given that the bid will never actually be used it can't really hurt you that much. At least you'll still have the CABs available in Hearts and Spades.

None of these things come up very frequently, but reserving 3 bids (4♦, 4♥, and 4♠) for delicate slam investigation at the expense of not being able to play 4M I'm 110% sure is wrong.