Keycard Blues I

[pclayton]

1♥ - 1♠

3♦ - 4♣

4N

 

4N is...?

[Echognome]

I would take 4♣ as a slam try in diamonds, so 4NT is RKC for diamonds in my book. Kind of reminds me of a hand we played in the LM pairs and went for 2800.

[gnasher]

I would take 4♣ as a slam try in diamonds, so 4NT is RKC for diamonds in my book.

Me too.

[MFA]

Ahh, nice to play precision :lol:.

 

I used to "invert" the meanings of 4♣ and 3♥ in these sequences, so that 3♥ was a kind of "4th suit", looking for more info, and 4♣ slammy with three hearts.

A jump to 4♥ would show a 3card limit raise that is not particularly good for slam.

 

Playing natural, I'd expect 4NT to be just that - natural.

[nige1]

1♥ - 1♠

3♦ - 4♣

4N

4N is...?

At pairs, I suppose it is just possible that 4N is natural; but at teams, IMO, it is RKCB for ♦.

With ♥ preference, partner could bid 3♥ over 3♦; but perhaps he deserves some leeway. so if he now converts 6♦ to 6♥, perhaps you should change your mind and assume 4♣ was a cue-bid for ♥

[Lobowolf]

Agree with keycard for diamonds, which are implied by 4♣.

[pclayton]

I hate to sound disingenuous, but if 4♣ agrees diamonds, what pray tell does 4♦ do?

[Lobowolf]

Agrees diamonds without showing a club control?

[inquiry]

It might be nice to layout all ther different meanings of 4NT (keycard, natural, quantitative, cue-bid, takeout, last train, etc), and set down reasonable rules for when 4NT can be what.

 

A solid such rule is that until a fit is established, 4NT can never be RKCB. I think even most posters here that are calling 4NT as RKCB folllow such a simple rule. The idea is that, this group assumes 4C shows a diamond fit (else why go past 3NT). If indeed 4C agrees diamonds as trumps, then 4NT could be RKCB.

 

Can 4C show a diamond fit and be a club cue bid? Well, sure it CAN if that is your agreement. It wasn't announced as such in original problem, so either 4C was undiscussed or was natural. I think assuming it was a fit showing bid without such a statement is wrong.

 

3D is game force, so we pick up the thread from there.

• 3NT would be natural, showing at least a club stopper, and no interest in slam given the current bidding. Opener is not barred, but he warned.
  
• 4NT over 3D would be quantitative I suspect (although many might assume by default that 4NT promise s fit for diamonds, I do not, since a forcing 4D raise was available, and perhaps 4D should be RKC on this auction.
  
• 4H probably does not show hearts over 3D, as with heart support, no need to introduce spades if you are real weak, so 4♥ is also a good candidate for ♦ fit and use as kickback
  
• 3♣I think should show some club values, probalby even longer clubs than spades and natural. This might be the only way to find slam should the hands be something where responder is too strong to bid only 3NT, with 4♠ and five or six clubs. Especially if opener will create a jump reverse in a three card suit and he might hold something like 1-6-3-3 with three strong diamonds.
  
• 4♦forcing at least, agreeing diamonds (as long as you do not play 3♦ maybe as short as 3.
  

So, if your jump shift can be on a short suit (mine can not, as I play ritong 2♣), I think 4♣ has to show clubs. Even if your jump shift requires a suit, lacking a specific agreement that 4♣ agrees ♦, I would take 4NT as natural. Maybe I am too old... :D

 

PS.. note, if you make jump shifts on non-exisiting suits, and 4♣ shows diamonds, you may need 4NT as natural over 4♣ anyway.... or you may end up in 3-3 or 3-4 diamond fit...

[jkdood]

Certainly a nice idea.

[gwnn]

I hate 4♥ as some sort of diamond move. 4♥ should be one of those limit raises with spades (I read this suggestion of this robust bidding idea a while back here) methinks.

[cherdano]

For me, 4♣ clearly shows diamonds. And of course, it shows more than 3! If you have a hand with no clear direction, you can bid 3♥. You don't need a bid to show clubs, if opener has 3 of them he will pattern out with 4♣ over 3♥, and responding hands with 6 clubs are too rare to be worrying about.

[Guest Jlall]

I like 4C as a strong raise in D with 4D as weaker, but most people just play 4C=club control + D I think.

[kenrexford]

Other.

 

This is NOT going to be a popular choice, but I actually think this should be the strange beast of RKCB for spades.

 

Opener's reason for bidding 3♦ is unknown up to this point. Maybe he just has the red suits, but that is not necessarily the case. Maybe he has a hand that is too strong to bid 4♥, but not good enough for 2♣ (perhaps because of Kokish or an immediate double neg. 2♥). Or, maybe he has a hand that is too good for 4♠ and not appropriate for a splinter (maybe void in clubs?).

 

Responder's 4♣ call was a power raise of diamonds. Now, Opener needs to complete the story. I don't think that diamonds are "set" until Opener confirms diamonds by bidding 4♦ in this sequence. 4♥ would complete the picture of the "too strong" heart hand. 4♠ would also show the "too strong" spade raise.

 

So, what about 4NT? Well, my default, which I think is a good one, is that calls above picture completion bids cater to the most expensive option. Hence, calls above 4♠ that are slam probes cater to the highest possible fit, meaning spades.

 

In other words, think through actual options:

 

1. If we are about to agree diamonds, 4♦ gives Responder the ability to bid a lot between 4♦ and 4NT. If 4NT is RKCB, then we have no problems. Alternatively, the "better treatment" here would be for 4♦ to actually be RKCB, which even further bolsters my point.

 

2. If Opener is about to show the "long hearts" hand, he can bid 4♥. That gives Responder two options. First, he could ask (4NT. Second, he could get under 4NT by bidding 4♠ to allow Opener to ask. This is good stuff.

 

3. If Opener has the power spade raise hand, and he bids 4♠, the partnership is down to very few options. Responder could bow out and pass, or Responder could dom the asking. That latter option may suck. So, Opener solves this problem by just asking (4NT, or even 5♣ exclusion, although maybe 4NT should actually be exclusion, in theory). Because spades is the most expensive to bid at this point, 4NT is reserved for that situation.

[pclayton]

Perhaps I'm influenced by the actual hand, but the player in this seat held ♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Qxx ♣AQxx. What is this hand supposed to do over 3♦? The hand is too good for 4N (clearly quantitiative) and any kind of slam looks premature, since we don't know if pard has real diamonds, so-so diamonds, or fake diamonds (CZ's? :P)

 

I think this is the kind of hand that bids 4♣. If you want to call 4♣ a strong diamond raise and 4♦ a weaker raise, I suppose thats OK, but I would want to include hands that want to 'punt' over 3♦. I don't like the idea about 4♣ being a diamond raise with a club control, and 4♦ being a diamond raise without one.

 

The player with the actual hand bid 3N which is patently horrible. Pard did have a 5-5, so if you move forward in diamonds, you'd be OK.

 

The original question was, "what is 4N over 4♣". Personally, I think if 4♣ is ambiguous, then Opener should clarify:

 

4♦ = real diamonds

4♥ = CZ's

4♠ = very big 3=5=4=1; maybe 3=6=3=1

4N = Natural - 1=5=4=3

[Trinidad]

Perhaps I'm influenced by the actual hand, but the player in this seat held ♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Qxx ♣AQxx. What is this hand supposed to do over 3♦? The hand is too good for 4N (clearly quantitiative) and any kind of slam looks premature, since we don't know if pard has real diamonds, so-so diamonds, or fake diamonds (CZ's?  :P)

I can see four reasonable bids with that hand. But the first thing that you need to do is evaluate the hand. If you do that you will conclude that you belong in slam and that the hand has some grand slam potential. Adding partner's 18-21 to your own 15 is not advanced bridge. You can't possibly miss two aces and I find it hard to construct a hand where opponents can cash AK in a red suit.

 

My four bids (that all might work, depending a bit on partnership style):

 

1) Bid 3♥, keep the bidding low. You are in a GF auction.

 

2) Bid 4♣, agree diamonds as trump and convert any diamond contract partner bids to 6NT (or 7NT)

 

3) Bid 5NT: pick a slam.

 

4) Bid 6NT, giving up on any grand slams and likely getting you to the best small slam.

 

Rik

[gnasher]

♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Qxx ♣AQxx.

...

I think this is the kind of hand that bids 4♣. If you want to call 4♣ a strong diamond raise and 4♦ a weaker raise, I suppose thats OK, but I would want to include hands that want to 'punt' over 3♦.

In other words you want to play 4♣ as Fourth Suit Forcing (or, as Ken might put it, Non-Specific LTTC). I'm usually in favour of the fourth suit being FSF even when we're already game-forced, but I think this is going too far. You need it only on hands which are too strong for a natural 4NT and don't fancy 3♥ - a very rare beast.

 

On this hand I'd bid 3♥, hoping to find out why partner game-forced. I'm probably going to bid 7NT in due course anyway, so the slight distortion is unlikely to cost.

[Guest Jlall]

3H on the example hand is fine, wtp? There is no shape that is bothersome (4135 would have started with 2C over 1H if it was too strong for a 4N bid now) imo. I still can't believe bidding a doubleton heart is not routine in these auctions?

 

On another note, I still can't believe responding 2C over 1H is not standard with this hand either. Think about how much easier this auction would have been.

[gnasher]

3H on the example hand is fine, wtp? ... I still can't believe bidding a doubleton heart is not routine in these auctions?

It is routine to bid 3♥ on a doubleton here. With the actual hand, however, you're so strong that you're probably going to have to take control, and when you do you may not want hearts to be the agreed suit. With hearts agreed, you may not be able to distinguish between, say, Q AQxxx AKJxx KJx and Q KQJxx AKJ10x KJx.

[Guest Jlall]

3H on the example hand is fine, wtp? ... I still can't believe bidding a doubleton heart is not routine in these auctions?

It is routine to bid 3♥ on a doubleton here. With the actual hand, however, you're so strong that you're probably going to have to take control, and when you do you may not want hearts to be the agreed suit. With hearts agreed, you may not be able to distinguish between, say, Q AQxxx AKJxx KJx and Q KQJxx AKJ10x KJx.

uhh, if 3H with a doubleton is "routine" then how does 3H agree hearts? 3H is almost like a waiting bid and just wants partner to make his third bid which will describe his hand. If partner bids, for example, 4D over 3H showing 5-5 (yes, some 5-5s will bid 3n), and we then bid 4S, that is a cuebid for DIAMONDS not hearts. If partner bids 3N, we are not locked in to hearts. 4D would be natural. 4N would be quantitative. etc. I don't think that 3H will lock us in at all, or even make it the temporarily agreed suit.

[MFA]

There is no shape that is bothersome (4135 would have started with 2C over 1H if it was too strong for a 4N bid now) imo.

I think you are making this sound a little bit too easy.

4NT is a rather strong suggestion about strain, and it could easily be an unacceptable bid, if for instance one of our black suits is too weak.

So we need a punt quite often here. If we are punting 3♥ with anything (even a small singleton), we might just as well define it as artificial - saying nothing about hearts.

 

On the theoretical side, it seems wrong to me to have TWO ways to support diamonds in this inelegant auction, while all cumbersome hands + hands that actually want to suggest hearts have to go through 3♥. This approach begs for troubles later.

[mike777]

why not start with 2c over 1h game force?

Kind of the whole point of 2/1 is too keep the bidding low and bid out your hand and shape.

 

"but the player in this seat held ♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Qxx ♣AQxx"

[pclayton]

A few observations:

 

1. 3♥ is possible, but as Michael points out, overloading it with a lot of hands that have real support and quasi support is an issue.

 

2. Do we really want to have two ways to raise to diamonds, when 3♦ is quite possibly suspect? I know when pard retreats to hearts, it sort of cancels the diamond message, so maybe this is still playable.

 

I'm surprised Ken hasn't brought up bidding 2♣ instead of 1♠. Auctions like this are a hidden benefit IMO.

[pclayton]

♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Qxx ♣AQxx.

...

I think this is the kind of hand that bids 4♣. If you want to call 4♣ a strong diamond raise and 4♦ a weaker raise, I suppose thats OK, but I would want to include hands that want to 'punt' over 3♦.

In other words you want to play 4♣ as Fourth Suit Forcing (or, as Ken might put it, Non-Specific LTTC). I'm usually in favour of the fourth suit being FSF even when we're already game-forced, but I think this is going too far. You need it only on hands which are too strong for a natural 4NT and don't fancy 3♥ - a very rare beast.

 

On this hand I'd bid 3♥, hoping to find out why partner game-forced. I'm probably going to bid 7NT in due course anyway, so the slight distortion is unlikely to cost.

Is 4♣ really so different than:

 

1♥ - 1♠

3♣ - 3♦

 

as a stall?

[pclayton]

Pard ended up with xx AQJxx AKJxx K. The heart hook lost, so only 12 tricks were available.

 

I suppose it doesn't matter what you do here. Pard will rebid diamonds and you'll reach slam. I do believe that a 5-5 owes a 4♦ call over 3♥ just in case pard has a doubleton.