After 1 or 4, go on with 4!

[Furlan]

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp2cp2sp3sp3n(Non-serious%20slam%20try)p4c(cue)p4n(RKCB)p5d(1%20or%204)p5s(Pass%20with%201%2C%20go%20on%20with%204)p6c(%3F)]133|100[/hv]

 

A top South American pair could not agree on the meaning of 6♣. What is it for you?

[mtvesuvius]

This is why I prefer 1430 :P Anyway, it should be the ♠Q and the ♣K

[Furlan]

Queen ask would be 5♥, not 5♠.

[matmat]

Queen ask would be 5♥, not 5♠.

If you already know the answer, why are you asking the question?

[mtvesuvius]

Queen ask would be 5♥, not 5♠.

Doesn't matter. This is a queen ask that is unsure whether partner has 1 or 4 (Is that even possible?!)

[the hog]

4 KC, Grand slam try, extra values in Clubs. Assuming the original C cure does not promise the A&K of C, then this shows the C king.

[gnasher]

It's normal to play that you reply to the queen ask in this situation, if you judge that a grand slam is possible.

 

Responder in this sequence is unlimited, so it's not an impossible scenario (though it does mean that 5♠ would have been in jeopardy opposite one keycard).

[Free]

It means 4 keycards and needs help in ♣ for grand.

[Cyberyeti]

Queen ask would be 5♥, not 5♠.

That's the queen ask for 6 opposite 1, it's embarrassing when you have one keycard each plus the ♠Q and you bid 6 although admittedly that's unlikely in this auction, but it's best to have general rules for this.

 

5♠ is a sign off saying as you say "pass with 1, bid on with 4".

 

You could have the agreement that 5N here is "4, interested in grand, no Q♠, only cue if you have it", in which case 6♣ says to me "I have ♠Q, ♣AK or AQ, quite often with the J, bid 7 with the missing one or cue bid me a red king if you haven't got it".

[VM1973]

I do not take 5♠ as a Queen ask because that's what 5♥ is. I believe the Blackwooder is indicating that they are missing 2 key cards and he wants to play 5NT. He cannot bid that directly as that would be asking for Kings and guaranteeing all 5 key cards.

 

6♣ must indicate a void in either hearts or diamonds.

 

I might be wrong. :)

[semeai]

Doesn't matter. This is a queen ask that is unsure whether partner has 1 or 4 (Is that even possible?!)

 

How about:

 

QJxxxx

x

KQJ

Axx

 

or

 

QJxxxxx

x

KQJ

Ax

 

Partner could have:

 

A10xx

KQ

x

KQJxxx

 

or

 

A10x

KQ

xx

KQJxxx

 

Might as well be extra careful. Partner will know not to pass with e.g.:

 

AKxxx

A

Ax

Kxxxx

 

which is a 6♣ bid here.

[semeai]

It means 4 keycards and needs help in ♣ for grand.

 

 

You could have the agreement that 5N here is "4, interested in grand, no Q♠, only cue if you have it", in which case 6♣ says to me "I have ♠Q, ♣AK or AQ, quite often with the J, bid 7 with the missing one or cue bid me a red king if you haven't got it".

 

How did the responder to keycard suddenly gain control of the auction?

[gnasher]

How did the responder to keycard suddenly gain control of the auction?

He's the one who's unlimited. Perhaps a more accurate wording would be "needs help in ♣ for grand, provided that all the keycards are present".

 

Auctions aren't about control, they're about exchanging information.

[pooltuna]

not to play; shows a source of tricks and includes the AK and 3 other keycards; basically a grand slam try.

[semeai]

He's the one who's unlimited. Perhaps a more accurate wording would be "needs help in ♣ for grand, provided that all the keycards are present".

 

Auctions aren't about control, they're about exchanging information.

 

I'm with you on auctions being about exchanging information, but not really during asking bids like keycard. Of course there's some exchange of information when the keycard-asker bids something like 5NT, guaranteeing all keys, but without a hand that can just bid the grand from there, keycard-responder's bids are constrained to answer the question.

 

Do you have the rule that when the holder of 3 or 4 keycards bids on after a signoff, he may assume responder has the other 2 or 1 keycards (plus the queen of trump?), and then it becomes as if he had been the one bidding keycard, or something similar? Or are your keycard auctions different from mine and do allow give-and-take instead of just the various asks?

 

To be cute, because I can't resist, it sounds as if here you've decided the unlimited hand has "control," even if the other hand bid keycard.

[gnasher]

I'm with you on auctions being about exchanging information, but not really during asking bids like keycard. Of course there's some exchange of information when the keycard-asker bids something like 5NT, guaranteeing all keys, but without a hand that can just bid the grand from there, keycard-responder's bids are constrained to answer the question.

 

Do you have the rule that when the holder of 3 or 4 keycards bids on after a signoff, he may assume responder has the other 2 or 1 keycards (plus the queen of trump?), and then it becomes as if he had been the one bidding keycard, or something similar? Or are your keycard auctions different from mine and do allow give-and-take instead of just the various asks?

 

I just play common sense. In this sequence, the auction from 3NT went:

Opener: I have only mild slam interest.

Responder: Even so, I think we may still have a slam on, and I have <whatever 4♣ showed>.

Opener: I think the best way to progress the auction is for you to tell me how many keycards you have.

Responder: One or four.

Opener: If you have only one keycard, we don't have a slam.

Responder: I have four keycards; if we have all the keycards we may have a grand slam. I have <whatever 6♣ showed>. What do you think about a grand slam?

 

To be cute, because I can't resist, it sounds as if here you've decided the unlimited hand has "control," even if the other hand bid keycard.

You think that when I said "auctions aren't about control", I meant "auctions are about control"?

[Phil]

Obviously bidding on shows 4 (or 3 the way most of the world plays).

 

This auction is probably covered in Kantar's book on RKB. He goes into more detail that you can imagine on sequences like this.

 

I would guess over 5♠:

 

5N = Trump Queen - side Kings unknown. If opener wants to know, he can bid 6x

6x = Lowest King, no trump Q.

6♠ = None of the above.

[semeai]

I just play common sense. In this sequence, the auction from 3NT went:

Opener: I have only mild slam interest.

Responder: Even so, I think we may still have a slam on, and I have <whatever 4♣ showed>.

Opener: I think the best way to progress the auction is for you to tell me how many keycards you have.

Responder: One or four.

Opener: If you have only one keycard, we don't have a slam.

Responder: I have four keycards; if we have all the keycards we may have a grand slam. I have <whatever 6♣ showed>. What do you think about a grand slam?

 

I'm happy with all you've written, but I'm confused with your meaning for 6♣ (i.e. the <whatever 6♣ showed> part). Why was it asking about club help (added: aka showing doubt about clubs) instead of showing ♣K (added: aka asking about how partner feels now that we're known to have ♣K)?

 

What does (spades agreed, e.g. 1S-2H;3C-3S) ... 4N-5D;6C mean for you?

 

How about (same) ... 4N-5D;5H-6C or ... 4N-5D;5N-6C?

 

How did you decide what 6♣ meant in the auction at hand?

 

You think that when I said "auctions aren't about control", I meant "auctions are about control"?

 

No, this is why it was "cute." Sorry, I should have resisted. (You seemed to suggest that the meaning of 6♣ depended on whether the player bidding it was unlimited, in essence deciding that hand had some inherent "control" to be the one asking for help in suits instead of showing something in suits.)

 

Added: Next we should argue about the meaning of the word "about."

[gnasher]

I'm happy with all you've written, but I'm confused with your meaning for 6♣ (i.e. the <whatever 6♣ showed> part). Why was it asking about club help (added: aka showing doubt about clubs) instead of showing ♣K (added: aka asking about how partner feels now that we're known to have ♣K)?

 

Sorry, I'd misunderstood - I thought we were still talking about responder's right to take control, ie your question "How did the responder to keycard suddenly gain control of the auction?"

 

Regarding the exact meaning of 6♣: I'd normally play this type of bid as a response to the queen ask (but also saying that a grand slam is a possibility). That is, it would show ♠Q, ♣A, and grand-slam aspirations. In fact, that's what I said it was in my first post in this thread, before I'd thought aboiut it properly.

 

However, this auction is unusual, in that the keycard bidder is limited, and the keycard responder knows most about what level we should be playing at. Therefore it makes sense for responder's bids to be consultative rather than merely replying to a question that wasn't even asked. I think 6♣ should show something like KQ Axx Axx AQxxx, ie a hand where opener's club holding is critical. I'm not saying that I would assume that at the table - it would depend on who I was playing with.

 

Another good reason for this interpretation is that it's actually impossible that responder has four key-cards, the queen of trumps, and ♣K, and still be uncertain of the right level - he would have had a grand-slam drive after the 4NT bid.

 

What does (spades agreed, e.g. 1S-2H;3C-3S) ... 4N-5D;6C mean for you?

Depending on the partnership, I usually play it as one of:

- not discussed

- asking for third-round club control

- asking for a useful club holding in context

 

How about (same) ... 4N-5D;5H-6C

The same as everybody else - ♠Q and ♣K.

 

or ... 4N-5D;5N-6C?

The king of clubs, usually.

 

How did you decide what 6♣ meant in the auction at hand?

See above.

 

I'm not sure that I'm the best person to be discussing high-level Keycard auctions. I seem to be dealt fewer Keycard hands than most people, and I've never spent much time thinking about the meanings of sequences.

[cloa513]

Why did his partner even ask whether its four or one key cards- its got to be four from the prior bidding? 6♣ has to be all four keycards plus rediculous length in clubs 7clubs/4spades with only the A♣ not AK♣ otherwise 7♠ has to be solid anyway.

[semeai]

Sorry, I'd misunderstood - I thought we were still talking about responder's right to take control, ie your question "How did the responder to keycard suddenly gain control of the auction?"

 

It seems we've had a semantic mixup. By keycard-responder taking control of the auction, I meant no more and no less than keycard-responder getting to be the one making asks (i.e. asking for help) in side suits rather than showing specific cards/holdings. If this is a word that usually means I have crazy ideas about bidding, I'll try to refrain from using it in the future!

 

Regarding the exact meaning of 6♣: I'd normally play this type of bid as a response to the queen ask (but also saying that a grand slam is a possibility). That is, it would show ♠Q, ♣A, and grand-slam aspirations. In fact, that's what I said it was in my first post in this thread, before I'd thought aboiut it properly.

 

However, this auction is unusual, in that the keycard bidder is limited, and the keycard responder knows most about what level we should be playing at. Therefore it makes sense for responder's bids to be consultative rather than merely replying to a question that wasn't even asked. I think 6♣ should show something like KQ Axx Axx AQxxx, ie a hand where opener's club holding is critical. I'm not saying that I would assume that at the table - it would depend on who I was playing with.

 

This is an interesting meaning, and it could work well. It would just not occur to me, and I don't know how it would occur to your partner, that you wouldn't just be showing the keycard-asker your ♠Q ♣K instead of now getting to be the one asking for help. Whenever keycard asker is limited and keycard responder is unlimited, does something like this happen? For example, after 4N-5D;5N, showing all keys, it seems the same logic as you have here would entitle keycard responder to bid 6♣ not as ♣K but as asking for help if sufficiently unlimited opposite a sufficiently limited partner. This is why I asked you about that auction too.

 

Another good reason for this interpretation is that it's actually impossible that responder has four key-cards, the queen of trumps, and ♣K, and still be uncertain of the right level - he would have had a grand-slam drive after the 4NT bid.

 

This seems like a difficult inference. I'm not fond of these "torture bids" that require partner to divine that I've tried an unusual meaning for a bid because I think it can be worked out.

 

In addition, your statement is maybe not true. See my above construction, with

 

QJxxxx

x

KQJ

Axx

 

AKxxx

Ax

A

Kxxxx

 

(Of course, your meaning for 6♣ is fine on this pair of hands too, but that's not the point!) Perhaps the lower hand would've bid keycard itself instead of cueing 4♣, but I'm not sure we can demand that. Probably he didn't expect his partner to bid 4NT, which is also a bit suspect with the top hand here, but I don't think we can forbid that hand from bidding 4NT either.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Queen ask would be 5♥, not 5♠.

If the asker were SURE the 5♦ reply were 4, then he could make the 5♥-trump Q-ask.

 

Since he wasn't sure, he bids 5S as explained.

When the Replier HAS 4, it is standard to "answer" as if he were asked for the trump Q -- hence the 6♣ reply showing the ♠ Q and ♣ K ( as others have answered here ) .

[gnasher]

This is an interesting meaning, and it could work well. It would just not occur to me, and I don't know how it would occur to your partner, that you wouldn't just be showing the keycard-asker your ♠Q ♣K instead of now getting to be the one asking for help. Whenever keycard asker is limited and keycard responder is unlimited, does something like this happen? For example, after 4N-5D;5N, showing all keys, it seems the same logic as you have here would entitle keycard responder to bid 6♣ not as ♣K but as asking for help if sufficiently unlimited opposite a sufficiently limited partner. This is why I asked you about that auction too.

Did you mean 4NT-5♦;5NT specifically after this start? I don't believe that's possible in this auction - opener would have to have four keycards and the queen of trumps, which seems inconsistent with his 3NT bid.

 

If you're asking about this category of sequence, where the Keycard bidder is limited and well-defined but the other hand is not, then yes, I think it should be saying "I need help here", by the same logic as before.

 

When the limited hand bids 5NT the primary meaning is "We have all the keycards, do you want to bid a grand slam?". It can't really be "If you tell me what kings you have I'll know what to do.", because the limited hand doesn't have enough information.

 

This seems like a difficult inference. I'm not fond of these "torture bids" that require partner to divine that I've tried an unusual meaning for a bid because I think it can be worked out.

As I said, I would only do it if I thought it was going to be understood. Of course, the problem can be avoided entirely by having the unlimited hand be the one that bids Keycard.

 

In addition, your statement is maybe not true. See my above construction, with

QJxxxx

x

KQJ

Axx

I think 4NT on that hand is a very poor bid. What will he do opposite three key cards, not knowing if there is a club loser?

[semeai]

Did you mean 4NT-5♦;5NT specifically after this start? I don't believe that's possible in this auction - opener would have to have four keycards and the queen of trumps, which seems inconsistent with his 3NT bid.

 

If you're asking about this category of sequence, where the Keycard bidder is limited and well-defined but the other hand is not, then yes, I think it should be saying "I need help here", by the same logic as before.

 

When the limited hand bids 5NT the primary meaning is "We have all the keycards, do you want to bid a grand slam?". It can't really be "If you tell me what kings you have I'll know what to do.", because the limited hand doesn't have enough information.

 

Okay, thanks. This seems a reasonable/good way to play it, though I'd not heard of it being used this way before.

 

Do you specifically have this agreement with partners, or just expect them to find this logical?

 

Is it widely played? My copy of Kantar's rkc book is not the latest, but I don't recall this sort of thing being mentioned. This of course doesn't mean much about its usefulness, just about how widespread it's likely to be.

[barryallen]

As the OP has already informed us that "After 1 or 4, go on with 4!" and that 5♥ would ask for the ♠Q, I can only see one conclusion otherwise it never gets posted in the first place. For two good players I can hardly see any confusion arising here but for the additional information carried by the 6♣ bid. After this sequence of bids I would assume something like, but I expect others have better.

 

5NT shows the ♠Q with any subsequent suit bid as asking for Q

6♣ shows the AK♣ plus ♠Q

6♦, ♥ shows that suit K plus the ♠Q

6♠ denies the Q

 

The only confusion I can see arising is over the holding of the ♠Q or the unlikely holding of ♠AK and two outside A, but I cannot see that as an issue given the bidding so far. You have to have a method of showing the ♠Q when you go forward with 4 key controls whether that is by denial with 5NT/6♠ or acceptance.