aces after minor fit

[kgr]

What do you consider the best method to ask for aces after having found a minor fit?

I play now that 4 in the minor is RKC 4130 if the fit was clear for bot partners before the 4m was bid.

[mike777]

What do you consider the best method to ask for aces after having found a minor fit?

I play now that 4 in the minor is RKC 4130 if the fit was clear for bot partners before the 4m was bid.

I prefer kickback(0-3/1-4), but it takes time to learn and practice.

A couple of things to really focus and practice on are:

1) What does 4nt mean?

2) When two touching suits have been bid naturally, which suit is trumps and which suit is rkc(kickback).

 

 

1D=2C

2H=3D

4C=4D OR 4h or 4nt

 

1) In this extreme example.....3d set diamonds as trump but you may still end up playing 3nt.

 

2 )4c=cue(note no 3s cue so spades may be a worry here)

 

3) 4d=natural, waiting, diamonds still trump, 4d is not kickback with clubs as trump, tricky. Note here it looks like responder is worried about spades and therefore did not bid 4h kickback, rkc for diamonds.

 

4) If 4H over 4c.....that is again kickback for D, rkc for D.

 

5) 4nt here is a cuebid in hearts, Diamonds are trump, it is not natural to play. Again one suspects that responder is worried about a spade control. In fact there is some inference(not 100%) responder may in fact be void in hearts since if not she may have just rebid 4D.

[kenrexford]

My experience is that minor slam sequences often are facilitated (and need) some sort of last train type of bidding. The problem with four of the minor as RKCB is often that it forces a do-or-don't guess too early.

 

Additionally, a lot of minor-oriented slam sequences are such that you might want to retain an ability to bail into an inferior but lower major semi-fit like 4-3 or 5-2.

 

For this reason, I personally like using a bid of four of the cheapest out-of-focus major as RKCB for the in-focus minor.

 

I also find it important in very specific two-minor sequences to have some discussion as to which is what. The general rules in that situation are that 4♥ is always RKCB for hearts, and that the cheapest of 4♦ or 4♠ is RKCB for diamonds, but only 4♦ if a LTTC-type bid there might make more sense.

 

Minors are weird to handle, though, and there are tons of situation-specific interpretations and nuances that are difficult to summarize. A simple example is that 4NT is often Last Train when clubs is agreed and NT ruled out.

[mikeh]

I prefer to use:

 

1) a single jump to the suit above the agreed minor is keycard.

 

2) there are auctions in which keycard is not available... if we have bid, say, to suit agreement at 4♦ and the next bid is a 4♠ cue bid, then keycard is not available. This agreement has NEVER cost (so far) and has proven very powerful. Had we bid to suit agreement at 4♦ and the bidding makes it clear that 4♥ cannot be a suggestion to play, then 4♥ can be used as keycard, if you are prepared to abandon last train usage.

 

3) special auctions: 1♠ 2♥ 3♦ 4♣: 4♣ keycard in diamonds

1♠ 2♥ 3♣ 4♦: 4♦ keycard in clubs

 

I have one partner, a multiple national champion and a Grand LM, who uses 4minor as keycard, even when it is the 1st time that that the suit has been raised.

 

Thus 1♠ 2♥ 3♦ 4♦ is keycard. I hate it, and it is clearly theoretically hideous, because simply knowing how many keycards partner has may be of very little use to you. Having said that, I can't recall any disasters he has had, playing with me or his other regular partner.

[kenrexford]

2) there are auctions in which keycard is not available... if we have bid, say, to suit agreement at 4♦ and the next bid is a 4♠ cue bid, then keycard is not available. This agreement has NEVER cost (so far) and has proven very powerful. Had we bid to suit agreement at 4♦ and the bidding makes it clear that 4♥ cannot be a suggestion to play, then 4♥ can be used as keycard, if you are prepared to abandon last train usage.

I'm curious about this part, because I am having trouble understanding what you mean, but I am interested.

 

We do some bidding, as a result of which diamonds are agreed at the four-level with a 4♦ call. Back to partner.

 

If I read this right, 4♥ is a partnership option bid. Maybe you agree to play this as RKCB (consistent with the other part, albeit without a jump), but the cost is the loss of LTTC. Otherwise, you apparently play this as LTTC, apparently.

 

This part, so far, is confusing me. Why not just play, for example, that 4♥ is RKCB and that 4♠ is LTTC?

 

You then describe 4♠ as a cuebid, if it is the next bid (bypassing 4♥, whatever 4♥ would have meant). I understand that keycard might not be available after this call, as 4NT might be deemed always a viable contract, and 5♣ too high to be an effective RKCB tool when diamonds are agreed. That makes sense.

 

But then I keep going back to the 4♥ call. Maybe 4♥ if directly over 4♦ as the agreement bid is LTTC and 4♠ in response to that 4♥ LTTC is RKCB? That makes sense, but then why not have 4♥ as LTTC, with a 4♠ RKCB, but 4♠ if bypassing 4♥ as RKCB also?

 

I imagine that the problem might be in showing controls, or more precisely bidding around holes. I cue 4♥, you cue 4♠ or 5♣; I cue 4♠, you know the hole, etc. LTTC at the end might appear.

 

So, do you reserve 4♥ as a control bid to have 5♣ later be a LTTC bid?

[mikeh]

Ken, the key is to understand the 4N bid.

 

Now, it can be played as keycard. Or it can be played as 'I have too much to bid 5 minor but I have nothing more to cuebid below 5 minor.

 

We don't explicitly use LTTC in minor suit auctions altho, I suppose, this usage of 4N is analogous.

 

So

 

1♠ 2♥

3♦ 4♦

4♥ 4♠

4N denies a club control but announces extra values (in the context of

the already strong 3♦ call)

 

1♦ 1♠

2♥ 3♦

4♣ 4♠

4N extra values in context, too much to bid 5 passable diamonds but not good enough to drive to slam and no second club control

[Codo]

I play minorwood and we have the definition: 4 in a minor is always RKCB when it is not defiened different. (Like splinters f.e. or part of some sequence after 2 NT openings)

Of course this is not optimal, but I believe that it is optimal given the limited resources I have as an amateur.

 

Thie first answer ALWAYS shows a Min. in the given context. So even if we are limited to exactly 4 clubs and 16 HCPS, we still use this approach and show 16 bad points with ourt first bid. Again the "always" is not optimal but it is optimal to avoid misunderstandings.

 

To me this works really well, but of course it has some disadvantages too:

 

1.If you find your fit at the 4. level, you are forced to play 4 NT or 5 of the minor, there is nearly never a way to stop in 4 in a minor.

 

2. If you find your fit at the 4. level, you are not able to check for controls anymore.

 

3. You need some more rules what to do in disturbed auctions.

 

But the advantages are quite nice:

1. It is very easy to remember.

2. It is much less error-prone then kickback.

3. It is nearly a complete level lower then 4 NT

4. If partner is still quite unlimited you can get some limitations from his bid.

[Finch]

With the exception of a very small number of specific sequences, I don't have an ace-asking bid after finding a minor suit fit.

 

I don't miss it.

[mike777]

Ken, the key is to understand the 4N bid.

 

Now, it can be played as keycard. Or it can be played as 'I have too much to bid 5 minor but I have nothing more to cuebid below 5 minor.

 

We don't explicitly use LTTC in minor suit auctions altho, I suppose, this usage of 4N is analogous.

 

So

 

1♠   2♥

3♦   4♦

4♥   4♠

4N                  denies a club control but announces extra values (in the context of

the already strong 3♦ call)

 

1♦   1♠

2♥   3♦

4♣   4♠

4N                 extra values in context, too much to bid 5 passable diamonds but not good enough to drive to slam and no second club control

I only add if playing kickback:

1) 4h is kickback...rkc for d.=4s=0-3

2) Diamonds are trump.........4s is a cuebid...........a very very rare cuebid(almost zero percent) above kickback suit. Partner has not bid 4h...kickback..rkc and partner has not bid 4nt......heart cuebid...diamonds are trumps. I repeat in kickback this auction is extremely rare.

[OleBerg]

Kick-back-culbertson and Formula Seven.

 

A very efficient, but also very error-prone method.

 

When a minor suit is agreed, 4 immidiately above the suit, shows three out of five aces. A cuebid above four of the suit shows 2 aces.

 

When partner has shown three aces, a cuebid shows at least one ace. 4nt takes the place of the cuebid in the suit that showed three aces.

 

5 of the suit above is used to check for the last ace, and the step immidiately above checks the trumph queen. The last two steps are used two show different degrees of interest in Grand-slam.

 

This allows you to both check aces and controls. But let me repeat: Very error-prone and takes a lot of preperation.

 

And if it wasn't complicated enough already, whenever you you need the step above for a natural bid, it's the step above that, that shows three aces.

 

A few quick examples:

 

1♥ - 2♣

4♣ - ?

 

4♦ = Three aces.

4♥/4♠ = Cuebid, promises two aces.

4nt = Diamond-cue, two aces.

 

 

1♥ - 2♦

4♦ - ?

 

4♥ = Natural (The way I play it. Be sure to have an agreement with your partner.

4♠ = Three aces.

4nt = Cuebid in spades, two aces.

 

 

Hold on, we're not done.

 

Hands with three aces should not bid four of the agreed minor, but find a way to to bid the step above. Often this can be done directly.

[jvage]

An interesting thread with good players arguing for very different approaches. I used to play the "suit-above-ask" with one very good partner (he just won Norways most prestiguos team event), but even with very detailed agreements we had some misunderstandings in contested auctions. Currently I play the same as I think our (Norways) European- and World champions use, that 4NT is the keycard-ask, but only if a minor-suit slam-try is accepted, typically with a cue-bid. I have played this for several years and have still not had any misunderstandings and have not missed other methods (but my memory may be selective).

 

The main issue when considering new methods is judging the loss of the normal meaning of the intended bid, in addition to minimizing complications and ambiguity. Of the suggested approaches I am personally most negative to giving up the natural, slam-invitational (in some cases denying one or more specific cue-bid) 4 of a minor.

 

I also like to keep 4NT as natural unless very specific conditions apply (mentioned above). Playing MP this is almost a must, but I think even at IMP's this is preferable. 10 tricks in NT is in some cases safer than 11 in a minor. It also seems like these small swings of 1-3 IMP's are more important to modern top-class pairs than they used to be. As an aside I just discussed the merits of a failing 7NT versus a slightly safer (and most importantly, making) 7♦ with one of the European champions from Pau. While he agreed that the minor-suit-slam was better on that occasion he stressed the importance of these small swings, in that case only 2 IMP's at the grand-slam level.

 

John

[kenrexford]

Ken, the key is to understand the 4N bid.

I sort of suspected that, but I think you can do a slight degree of combining if 4♥ is RKCB and 4NT is a cue for the RKCB suit (hearts). Whereas you gain an ability to have a sort of 2-way LTTC approach (e.g., 4NT as LTTC without a club control but 5♣ LTTC with a club control) when 4NT is a general LTTC bid, you lose RKCB. If 4NT is a cue of the RKCB suit, then you gain RKCB for some auctions but end up with, for example, 5♣ as LTTC without a club control but no LTTC with a club control (in the one sequence -- sometimes 5♣ would show a club control, presumably).

[mike777]

Ken, the key is to understand the 4N bid.

I sort of suspected that, but I think you can do a slight degree of combining if 4♥ is RKCB and 4NT is a cue for the RKCB suit (hearts). Whereas you gain an ability to have a sort of 2-way LTTC approach (e.g., 4NT as LTTC without a club control but 5♣ LTTC with a club control) when 4NT is a general LTTC bid, you lose RKCB. If 4NT is a cue of the RKCB suit, then you gain RKCB for some auctions but end up with, for example, 5♣ as LTTC without a club control but no LTTC with a club control (in the one sequence -- sometimes 5♣ would show a club control, presumably).

A guess, only a guess but I think Ken may play more LTTC here in the forum than the top 50 pairs combined the last 12 months. :)

[gnasher]

A guess, only a guess but I think Ken may play more LTTC here in the forum than the top 50 pairs combined the last 12 months. :)

Yes, but he artificially inflates his LTTC score by using the term for things that have traditionally been called something else.

 

For example "4NT as LTTC without a club control but 5♣ LTTC with a club control" might alternatively be described as "4NT D/I" (or "Rolling" if you're British) and "5♣ cue bid", methods which have been around since, respectively, the 1960s and the 1930s (I think).

 

I suspect that Ken has a secret plan to reduce the language of bidding to two terms: "LTTC" and "cue". Watch out for the first reference to "LTTC, asking for 4-card majors", which I predict will appear any day now.

Edited July 4, 2008 by gnasher

[OleBerg]

I also like to keep 4NT as natural unless very specific conditions apply (mentioned above). Playing MP this is almost a must, but I think even at IMP's this is preferable. 10 tricks in NT is in some cases safer than 11 in a minor. It also seems like these small swings of 1-3 IMP's are more important to modern top-class pairs than they used to be.

A number of these hands can be covered by inviting with a quantitative 4nt, by either player, instead of inviting slam with four of a minor.

 

But of course it is not free, to give up the use of 4nt as natural.

[fromageGB]

As a decidedly non-expert, maybe I shouldn't be contributing here, but in 2 partnerships I play "next step over 4 of the trump suit is ace asking", whatever the suit, and have found it useful.  We don't come unstuck because we have simple rules.

 

If the suit is explicitly agreed, no problem.  In a sequence like 1♠ 2♥ 3♦, where no suit is agreed, 4♥ is ace asking in diamonds, 4♠ is ace asking in hearts, and 4NT ace asking in spades.  These are categorically ace asking (in our simple methods) because they are jumps.  If we wanted to bid 4♥ to play, for example, we would bid something else first then rebid 4♥.  If a suit has not been agreed, and you are bidding at the 4 level without a jump, then the rule is "if it could be ace asking, it is", as often it will be obvious that it must be or cannot be.  For example, 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ 3♦ 3♠ 4♠ is to play, as heart support could have been shown earlier. 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ is similarly to play because if responder wanted unilaterally to ace ask in diamonds he wouldn't have bothered with 3♦ first.

 

If we are cue bidding below the level of 4, we still play the ace ask bid as ace asking, abandoning cues at that point, or if we bypass it we continue with cues, with 4NT being the cue for the asking suit.

 

We also use NT as the displaced bid to show the king of that asking suit when we come to asking for specific kings by bidding 5 of the asking suit.

[mikeh]

Ken, the key is to understand the 4N bid.

I sort of suspected that, but I think you can do a slight degree of combining if 4♥ is RKCB and 4NT is a cue for the RKCB suit (hearts). Whereas you gain an ability to have a sort of 2-way LTTC approach (e.g., 4NT as LTTC without a club control but 5♣ LTTC with a club control) when 4NT is a general LTTC bid, you lose RKCB. If 4NT is a cue of the RKCB suit, then you gain RKCB for some auctions but end up with, for example, 5♣ as LTTC without a club control but no LTTC with a club control (in the one sequence -- sometimes 5♣ would show a club control, presumably).

I am with Frances, in that I don't find the relative lack of an ace asking convention, in minor suit auctions, to be a problem at all. I know that I keep saying this, and am thus becoming (or already am) boring on the topic, but I think far too many players have been conditioned into thinking that they need to ask for aces in order to bid slams. It is nonsense.

 

I also think part of the problem is that many of the players who post here are overly dependent on one partner or the other being in charge of an auction. There are times for captaincy (I like relays, for instance, and you don't get more captain-like than that) but there are many, many hands on which bidding truly is a dialogue... I'll put my minor slam bidding up against (almost) every poster here, and not take a back seat just because I rarely have keycard... and I suspect Frances could do the same.

 

So I find the idea that I could do a bit of 'combining' of my methods decidely unattractive... I like my methods, they work better than keycard, when used by two good players who understand that judgement and cooperation allow for far more nuanced auctions than 'how many keycards do you hold... I will place the contract once you tell me'.

 

And if two not-so-good players work at such a method, lo and behold, they will become better players, because they will have learned to think and to bid cooperatively.

[fromageGB]

1♦  1♠

2♥  3♦

4♣  4♠

Diamonds are trump.........4s is a cuebid...........a very very rare cuebid(almost zero percent) above kickback suit. Partner has not bid 4h...kickback..rkc and partner has not bid 4nt......heart cuebid...diamonds are trumps. I repeat in kickback this auction is extremely rare.

I agree with everything mike777 has said in his posts (except that my ace responses are different) apart from this :  4♣ is a cue bid, and if you now bid 4♠ this is not, for me, denying a heart control, as 4NT is a higher bid.  However, it does invite opener to show second round control by bidding 4NT.

[Winstonm]

I think far too many players have been conditioned into thinking that they need to ask for aces in order to bid slams. It is nonsense.

 

Could not be in more agreement. Just to add, it seems to me that even if one would find it needed to have a simple ace-ask over a minor, the occasions for its use would be so limited as to have a simple and consistent bid take that place - something like 4 of a supported minor is always ace asking. I really don't see the need for anything more than that.

[OleBerg]

Ken, the key is to understand the 4N bid.

I sort of suspected that, but I think you can do a slight degree of combining if 4♥ is RKCB and 4NT is a cue for the RKCB suit (hearts). Whereas you gain an ability to have a sort of 2-way LTTC approach (e.g., 4NT as LTTC without a club control but 5♣ LTTC with a club control) when 4NT is a general LTTC bid, you lose RKCB. If 4NT is a cue of the RKCB suit, then you gain RKCB for some auctions but end up with, for example, 5♣ as LTTC without a club control but no LTTC with a club control (in the one sequence -- sometimes 5♣ would show a club control, presumably).

I am with Frances, in that I don't find the relative lack of an ace asking convention, in minor suit auctions, to be a problem at all. I know that I keep saying this, and am thus becoming (or already am) boring on the topic, but I think far too many players have been conditioned into thinking that they need to ask for aces in order to bid slams. It is nonsense.

 

I also think part of the problem is that many of the players who post here are overly dependent on one partner or the other being in charge of an auction. There are times for captaincy (I like relays, for instance, and you don't get more captain-like than that) but there are many, many hands on which bidding truly is a dialogue... I'll put my minor slam bidding up against (almost) every poster here, and not take a back seat just because I rarely have keycard... and I suspect Frances could do the same.

 

So I find the idea that I could do a bit of 'combining' of my methods decidely unattractive... I like my methods, they work better than keycard, when used by two good players who understand that judgement and cooperation allow for far more nuanced auctions than 'how many keycards do you hold... I will place the contract once you tell me'.

 

And if two not-so-good players work at such a method, lo and behold, they will become better players, because they will have learned to think and to bid cooperatively.

Everybody likes their own methods best, and I am no exception.

 

However if I had to choose betweem your methods and ace-asking, I might very well pick your methods.

 

Now, as I am a little paranoid: Do your methods work as nicely, when playing with screens?

[Finch]

Now, as I am a little paranoid: Do your methods work as nicely, when playing with screens?

When I read this question, my immediate reaction is that you are accusing mikeh (and possibly me) of cheating i.e. of using UI to help with slam bidding.

 

If you meant it that way, I doubt we'll bother responding.

 

If you didn't mean it that way, can you explain what you actually meant?

[OleBerg]

Now, as I am a little paranoid: Do your methods work as nicely, when playing with screens?

When I read this question, my immediate reaction is that you are accusing mikeh (and possibly me) of cheating i.e. of using UI to help with slam bidding.

 

If you meant it that way, I doubt we'll bother responding.

 

If you didn't mean it that way, can you explain what you actually meant?

Well, I understand that you, and others, will find the post quite harsh.

 

I actually meant it as a question, quite literally.

 

In Denmark, it is so fortunate for me, that screens have been introduced all the way down to my level.

 

I have seen quite a few players with the philosofy: "We don't need all those agreement, we'll just use our judgement", fall through after screens were introduced. Yet again, I have seen other players with the same philosofy not falling through.

 

I do not believe that those who fell through were cheating. I believe they were unaware, that they picked up to many clues from partner.

 

And that isn't cheating. The unspoken language, (Mimics etc.) is something most people are not aware of, and something other people has made millions making them aware of (IRL). So not being aware of it, is definately not cheating.

 

To test your methods using screens however, is a good indicator of whether your methods are sound.

[mikeh]

Now, as I am a little paranoid: Do your methods work as nicely, when playing with screens?

 

It is difficult to read this as anything other than an accusation of cheating, modified by your later post as an accusation of unconscious cheating, which is much the same thing addressed to a international player... I think most would expect that anyone who had represented their country should know about unconscious information passing.

 

FWIW, the practice I described was developed in the context of a partnership formed explicitly to attempt to represent our country.. so we were always focussed on and gained considerable experience with screens. I'd estimate that we played about half our bridge, over the 5 years of the partnership, behind screens. And our failings on the world stage were not, as far as I recall, because our methods were impaired by the presence of screens B)

[OleBerg]

Now, as I am a little paranoid: Do your methods work as nicely, when playing with screens?

 

It is difficult to read this as anything other than an accusation of cheating, modified by your later post as an accusation of unconscious cheating, which is much the same thing addressed to a international player... I think most would expect that anyone who had represented their country should know about unconscious information passing.

 

FWIW, the practice I described was developed in the context of a partnership formed explicitly to attempt to represent our country.. so we were always focussed on and gained considerable experience with screens. I'd estimate that we played about half our bridge, over the 5 years of the partnership, behind screens. And our failings on the world stage were not, as far as I recall, because our methods were impaired by the presence of screens :P

It is well known, that the phrase "It is well known", is often followed by a lie. Nonetheless I'll try it.

 

It is well known, that a large portion of the impressions a person recieves, does not enter the consious mind, but goes directly into the subconsiousness, where it is processed without our knowledge. (From memory: It is about 80%.) A simple example of this is, what happens when our instincts tells us something.

 

That doesn't change because you become an international player.

 

 

As I noted in my previous post, only some people fell through, when screens were introduced where I play, while others didn't.

 

I am convinced that those who fell through, where those with the philosofy "Let's play something simple, and use our judgement". Judgement here akin to table-presence.

 

Those that didn't fell through, were those who played some conventions and made an amount of agreements. They (you) use the word judgement to describe their abilety to evaluate a hand.

 

 

The first group would need to rely on their instincts, with a high risk of involuntarily using something they subconsiously picked up from partner. I would never consider that cheating.

 

The second group, being prepared and having developed sound methods, would not need to rely on these instincts.

 

 

Thus, as you haven't fallen through, you obviously belong to the second group, and can be happy that you are not only an excellent player, but have also chosen an approach to bridge, that makes you a very ethical player.

[kgr]

thanks all for the replys.

What are the (dis)advantages of kickback vs minorwood?