Blame time again

[Finch]

In all the many, many years I have used keycard I have NEVER not known how many partner held. In my view, bidding keycard when one cannot tell 1 from 4 or 0 from 3 is a very strong signal that the use of keycard was inappropriate. I would go so far as to suggest, as a rule of thumb, that if you are considering keycard and realize that you will be facing this situation, make some other call..... keycard is almost certainly not the best call available to you at this point.... btw, this is not a prompt for people to create unusual hands where keycard is the best call.... I said and stress 'almost certainly'.

 

Maybe you are going to accuse me of being over-pedantic, but there is a class of hands - not that unusual - where the confusion can arise quite sensibly. It is the ones where the partnership is making grand, usually with a trick to spare, opposite (say) 3 key cards, and small slam with an overtrick on a finesse opposite 2 key cards.

 

The last time I had this auction, with spades agreed, it finished...

 

............................4NT

5C (0 or 3)............5S sign-off (in case of 0 opposite)

7NT

 

it had 16 top tricks and in practice the blackwood responder could have bid a grand as soon as he heard the 4NT bid opposite.

 

I fully agree that you shouldn't be bidding a small slam after a 0/3 or 1/4 confusion. If you need all those key cards for the 6-level, how are you going to make at the 5 level with 3 fewer?

[jdonn]

In all the many, many years I have used keycard I have NEVER not known how many partner held. In my view, bidding keycard when one cannot tell 1 from 4 or 0 from 3 is a very strong signal that the use of keycard was inappropriate. I would go so far as to suggest, as a rule of thumb, that if you are considering keycard and realize that you will be facing this situation, make some other call..... keycard is almost certainly not the best call available to you at this point.... btw, this is not a prompt for people to create unusual hands where keycard is the best call.... I said and stress 'almost certainly'.

I have seen it happen twice. In both cases someone opened a minor and had a major suit response, and they were 5-6 with that major and no keycards and jumped to 4, partner bid blackwood, and disaster ensued. I think the fault lies with the bid of 4 on such a hand, if you bid less then partner definitely has enough to keep going anyway since the opponents haven't bid despite you holding just two cards in the other suits.

[mikeh]

Maybe you are going to accuse me of being over-pedantic, but there is a class of hands - not that unusual - where the confusion can arise quite sensibly.  It is the ones where the partnership is making grand, usually with a trick to spare, opposite (say) 3 key cards, and small slam with an overtrick on a finesse opposite 2 key cards.

 

The last time I had this auction, with spades agreed, it finished...

 

............................4NT

5C (0 or 3)............5S sign-off (in case of 0 opposite)

7NT

 

it had 16 top tricks and in practice the blackwood responder could have bid a grand as soon as he heard the 4NT bid opposite.

 

I fully agree that you shouldn't be bidding a small slam after a 0/3 or 1/4 confusion.  If you need all those key cards for the 6-level, how are you going to make at the 5 level with 3 fewer?

You are being over-pedantic :rolleyes: :) :rolleyes:

 

I did stress 'almost certainly', and I am willing to bet that in your auction either the keycard responder had not yet revealed her strength or that the keycarder 'knew' that the response showed 3 but 'signed off' only as a matter of partnership discipline. And, as you recognized, the rule I was suggesting really applies to small slam decisions... few grand slam sequences will ever possess the degree of ambiguity that is required before the keycarder can't tell 0 from 3 or 1 from 4.

[whereagles]

J2NT = a reasonably decent convention that got broken beyond repair by idiotic standard follow-ups

[skjaeran]

Just another hand showing the huge problems with the response structure to Jacoby as played in the US (and maybe lots of other places).

 

I don't know anyone here in Norway playing that structure. The normal structure here is to show side suits at the 3-level if you're non-minimum and 3M if minimum. Over a new suit 3M (or 3NT over 3♠) is a shortness ask. Direct jumps to 4-level over 2NT show voids.

 

I've played the above structure with regulars and pick-ups for more than 20 years now - with good results.

 

With my most regular partner I play a complex structure, not comparable to the above or the US standard. I've published it here on the forums at least once before - maybe half a year ago.

[skjaeran]

As for the auction here:

 

Over 4♦, 4♥ would be last train to me, and not promise a heart control.

 

I can't understand not signing off over 4♦ though, with 9 hcp in partners short suits - of which ♥Q normally is of no value at all and the ♣K dubious. So I'd blame north 50%, south 25% and system (or lack thereof) 25%.

[jdonn]

Yes the system sucks but it's common so it is what it is. I blame north more than south although both were guessing to some extent. North needs AK AK just to be on a finesse for slam, he certainly won't miss a cold one by signing off. South at least bid on where north could be passing 4♠ on a hand that makes slam, like AKxx Axxx xx xxx which is better than a 60% slam.

[jtfanclub]

Maybe you are going to accuse me of being over-pedantic,

In contrast to mere normal pedantitry. Pedantitude? Pedanticness? Pedantination? Pedantosity?

 

What is the word for the state of being pedantic?

[Echognome]

Maybe you are going to accuse me of being over-pedantic,

In contrast to mere normal pedantitry. Pedantitude? Pedanticness? Pedantination? Pedantosity?

 

What is the word for the state of being pedantic?

Pedantry

[jdonn]

Maybe you are going to accuse me of being over-pedantic,

In contrast to mere normal pedantitry. Pedantitude? Pedanticness? Pedantination? Pedantosity?

 

What is the word for the state of being pedantic?

Pedantry

I believe the correct word is www.dictionary.com

[Winstonm]

Another Jacoby 2NT Hater!!! 

 

(Jacoby 2NT = Gerber???)

 

Hadn't thought of that Gerber/Jacoby relationship but it's a good one.

My original thought when seeing this thread was that anyone who plays Jacoby 2NT gets what he deserves.

[kenrexford]

The discussion of "what next?" after J2NT (aka "the Other Gerber") seems to me to "prove" a point that I have been trying to make.

 

If Responder tends to have Aces-and-Spaces outside, then he will tend to have a manageable hand after Opener's next call, assuming of course a reasonably logical rebid structure.

 

As a simple example, consider a typical Aces-and-Spaces collection, after a 1♠ opening. Something, perhaps, like ♠QJxx ♥AKx ♦Axx ♣xxx. Fairly nice and average.

 

Suppose, now, that Opener shows a 5-5 hand with spades and clubs. Responder knows that he has the side suits completely covered. The critical inquiry, then, is whether Opener has enough in his suits to avoid two losers. Range is important, of course, but this should be manageable.

 

Suppose that Opener shows, instead, a 5-5 hand with spades and a red suit. Now, the slam looks to depend on one issue. Where's Opener's stiff? Of course, the normal techniques leave that frequently critical question unanswered, which seems dumb. Hence a tweak I use. An immediate 4-level call shows 5-5 with shortness in the lower other suit (here, short clubs), whereas 3♣ (ostensibly just a stiff) and then a bid of a 5-card suit at the four-level after the 3♦ asking bid (3♥ --> 3NT show stiffs) shows that the stiff is in the higher other suit.

 

Suppose that Opener shows a stiff, generally. Again, easy to handle. Same thing for general quantitatives, however you play these.

 

J2NT can be useful, IMO, with two caveats. First, you need a better structure, as many here have suggested. Second, IMO, Jacoby 2NT sequences (if playing 2/1 GF and if using decent cuebidding techniques) should be limited to hands that tend to be Aces-and-Spaces on the outside.

[Winstonm]

So, it sounds like what you are saying is that a better forcing raise structure is needed instead of simply relying on catchall J2NT. I happen to agree.

[matmat]

So, it sounds like what you are saying is that a better forcing raise structure is needed instead of simply relying on catchall J2NT. I happen to agree.

I am not going to argue against this position, as it is likely correct, but i do find it kinda annoying when a convention gets the blame for someone abusing it.

[kenrexford]

So, it sounds like what you are saying is that a better forcing raise structure is needed instead of simply relying on catchall J2NT.  I happen to agree.

I am not going to argue against this position, as it is likely correct, but i do find it kinda annoying when a convention gets the blame for someone abusing it.

The convention is not getting the blame, as I understand it.

 

The abuse of the convention (using it at the wrong time) or the overuse of the convention (relying too much on the convention rather than alternatives) or the underuse of the convention (not having sufficient follow-up to the start of the convention) is getting the blame.

[hrothgar]

Maybe you are going to accuse me of being over-pedantic,

In contrast to mere normal pedantitry. Pedantitude? Pedanticness? Pedantination? Pedantosity?

 

What is the word for the state of being pedantic?

Pederast

[Mr. Dodgy]

Maybe you are going to accuse me of being over-pedantic,

In contrast to mere normal pedantitry. Pedantitude? Pedanticness? Pedantination? Pedantosity?

 

What is the word for the state of being pedantic?

Pederast

you might want to check that LOL

 

I think the word for the state of being pedantic is, uh, 'pedantic'. A practitioner of pedantry is a 'pedant'.

 

A pederast is something else completely: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pederast

[david_c]

Heh, this was an old joke at uni. You accuse someone of "pedanticism" or "pedanticness", and the reply is supposed to be

 

"It's pedantry, dammit!"

[Fluffy]

Heh, this was an old joke at uni. You accuse someone of "pedanticism" or "pedanticness", and the reply is supposed to be

 

"It's pedantry, dammit!"

lol

[Winstonm]

Pendantical?

[Echognome]

Heh, this was an old joke at uni. You accuse someone of "pedanticism" or "pedanticness", and the reply is supposed to be

 

"It's pedantry, dammit!"

Yes. I was actually aware that it could have been a setup. What can you do? I figured I would just state the answer simply in case it was a genuine question. Very hard to tell online.

 

Another good one is to go into a mixed crowd genderwise and yell out "Women always take things so personally!"

 

You are bound to get at least one woman saying "No we don't!"

 

Edit: I'm told the gag works equally well on men... :rolleyes:

[kenrexford]

On a related note, in a mixed crowd, challenge your male friends to try to touch their elbows together behind their back.