place the contract

[jillybean]

Here's a hand from the Evergreen Sectional,

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj854ha6543djcat&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1sp2np3np4np5dp5np6dp]133|200[/hv]

 

3N* K+ more than minimum and heart shortage

5♦* 3/0 keys

6♦* ♦K

[Hanoi5]

7♠, partner has AKxxx in spades, a singleton heart, ♦king (for the club discard). Even if they lead a spade I think partner can manage to crossruff

[aguahombre]

Yep, you have a club pitch on the diamond king and plenty of trumps....looks like 13 tricks

[ArtK78]

I realize that this is the B/I Forum. But there is a point I want clarification on.

 

What is meant by heart shortage? Singleton or void? If a doubleton is possible, then this is a possible hand:

 

xxxxx KQ KQ KQJx

 

(I realize that many would open the given hand 1NT rather than 1♠, but it is certainly possible that some players would open 1♠, and some would have no choice, having agreed not to open any hand with a 5 card major with 1NT)

 

Partner then bid 5♦ over 4NT, showing 0 or 3 key cards. The bidder conveniently ignored the possibility that zero is a possible holding. The correct way to bid over multi-meaning responses to RKCB is to assume the lower amount and sign off, and, if responder has the higher amount, he continues on as if asker made a second ask. So asker (the 4NT bidder) should have bid 5♠ over 5♦. If responder actually has 3 key cards, he bids again as if asker had made a second ask.

 

Even in those cases where partner "must" have the higher number of key cards, one should sign off and allow partner to continue the responses over the sign off. Every so often, partner has done something "creative" and he actually has the lower number of key cards that he can't have.

 

If partner showed a singleton or void in hearts by his 3NT bid, then he "must" have 3 key cards to have at least a K above a minimum opener. But I am not going to make that assumption.

 

Personally, I think that partner may have forgotten the 3NT agreement, and he actually has xxxxx KQJ KQ KQJ.

[aguahombre]

Art, I think you missed the OP explanation of 3NT; and of 6D. He showed heart shortage and denied the club king by showing the diamond king first.

[ArtK78]

Art, I think you missed the OP explanation of 3NT; and of 6D. He showed heart shortage and denied the club king by showing the diamond king first.

When you take your action over 5♦, you don't know that partner will deny the ♣K on his next ask. I should have said that, at the time that partner bid 5♦, he could have had zero key cards. Later you know that is not possible (unless partner is being REALLY creative).

 

Suffice to say I don't like the auction.

[aguahombre]

O.k., whatever. KQJ would not be heart shortage, and why would he show the king of diamonds first if he had the king of clubs? There is not room for opener to have no keycards and be a "king+" above a minimum opener.

 

I assume you mean you don't like South's auction, or their methods ---since you haven't seen North's hand. I might not use their methods either, but they are given in the OP and seem to have worked out fine for the grand (if North's rebids are correct).

[TWO4BRIDGE]

..... he [ Opener ] could have had zero key cards.

 

Impossible.

Partner has shown ♥-shortage w/extras ( ~ 15+ ) .

[jillybean]

I realize that this is the B/I Forum. But there is a point I want clarification on.

 

What is meant by heart shortage? Singleton or void? If a doubleton is possible, then this is a possible hand:

 

xxxxx KQ KQ KQJx

 

(I realize that many would open the given hand 1NT rather than 1♠, but it is certainly possible that some players would open 1♠, and some would have no choice, having agreed not to open any hand with a 5 card major with 1NT)

 

Partner then bid 5♦ over 4NT, showing 0 or 3 key cards. The bidder conveniently ignored the possibility that zero is a possible holding. The correct way to bid over multi-meaning responses to RKCB is to assume the lower amount and sign off, and, if responder has the higher amount, he continues on as if asker made a second ask. So asker (the 4NT bidder) should have bid 5♠ over 5♦. If responder actually has 3 key cards, he bids again as if asker had made a second ask.

 

Even in those cases where partner "must" have the higher number of key cards, one should sign off and allow partner to continue the responses over the sign off. Every so often, partner has done something "creative" and he actually has the lower number of key cards that he can't have.

 

If partner showed a singleton or void in hearts by his 3NT bid, then he "must" have 3 key cards to have at least a K above a minimum opener. But I am not going to make that assumption.

 

Personally, I think that partner may have forgotten the 3NT agreement, and he actually has xxxxx KQJ KQ KQJ.

 

Heart shortage = singleton or void, not xx or xxx. This is standard isn't it, I didn't think I needed to clarify what 'shortage' is.

 

This is the first I have heard that the correct way to bid over a multi-meaning repsonse to rkc is to sign off and let partner continue, even when you know he has the maximum response.

It sounds very odd.

 

"If partner showed a singleton or void in hearts by his 3NT bid, then he "must" have 3 key cards to have at least a K above a minimum opener. But I am not going to make that assumption."

 

It's not an assumption, partner must have 3 key cards for his bidding. My partner is an intelligent guy, I trust his bidding rather than assume he has forgotten the system or made 'creative bids'.

[Finch]

Here's a good general rule*

 

If you open 1 major, partner makes a game forcing raise, and you have 0 key cards, you do not have "a king better than a minimum opening" no matter how many HCP you have. Contrariwise, if you have 6 trumps and 3 key cards you don't have a minimum opening.

 

*I know, general rules are there to have exceptions found to them

[ArtK78]

This is the first I have heard that the correct way to bid over a multi-meaning response to rkc is to sign off and let partner continue, even when you know he has the maximum response.

It sounds very odd.

 

This is standard. When partner makes a 0 or 3/1 or 4 response to an asking bid, you should assume the lesser number and sign off. Partner, with the higher number, must act again, as any hand holding the higher number must be sufficient for further action (anyone asking for key cards must be prepared to bid a slam if responder has 3 or 4 key cards).

 

I realize that, given the bidding on this hand, partner cannot have zero key cards. But partner does not know that you know that, and he will act again with the higher number.

 

There are hands which have been written up in the bridge literature from years ago, before RKC and the 0 or 3/1 or 4 structure was common, when the 5♣ response to regular Blackwood was 0 or 4 aces. One partner made a seemingly strength showing bid with extreme distribution but no aces; the other partner would launch into Blackwood with no aces; and the 5♣ response would be read as 4 aces. Thus, a grand slam off 4 cashing aces was reached. I don't have any example handy, but I remember reading about it.

 

(One might think "how incredibly stupid for anyone to bid Blackwood with no aces - but the hands that were written up were not bid by nobodies - they were bid by well known experts - admittedly not their finest hour)

 

This is why one should always follow the procedure that I outlined above when dealing with 0 or 3/1 or 4 responses to asking bids. If one follows this procedure (even when it is "impossible" for partner to have the lower number) one will never have one of these incredibly silly disasters.

 

You will probably get away with assuming that partner has the higher number of key cards when he or she has made strong bids. But if you are ever wrong about that, you will be VERY wrong. Doesn't it make sense to assume the lower number and have partner continue on with the higher number in all cases?

[BunnyGo]

This is standard. When partner makes a 0 or 3/1 or 4 response to an asking bid, you should assume the lesser number and sign off. Partner, with the higher number, must act again, as any hand holding the higher number must be sufficient for further action (anyone asking for key cards must be prepared to bid a slam if responder has 3 or 4 key cards).

This is true.

 

 

This is why one should always follow the procedure that I outlined above when dealing with 0 or 3/1 or 4 responses to asking bids. If one follows this procedure (even when it is "impossible" for partner to have the lower number) one will never have one of these incredibly silly disasters.

 

This is false. Bid on when you know what partners hand is. The way Art has described it, every 5m response to blackwood cannot be followed up by 5NT. When you're the one who knows what's going on, don't be afraid to bid.

[aguahombre]

There is nothing "standard" about allowing for zero instead of 3, or one instead of four in response to RKC. If it is the lower number, and it matters, you are already too high and should not have asked the question.

[ArtK78]

This is false. Bid on when you know what partners hand is. The way Art has described it, every 5m response to blackwood cannot be followed up by 5NT. When you're the one who knows what's going on, don't be afraid to bid.

 

No. When the lower response (or the 2 with or without response) shows that the partnership has all of the key cards, then the asker can continue with 5NT or whatever the proper continuation might be. And that is the usual case, as the asker should be the one with 3 or more key cards.

 

It is the unusual case when it is correct to ask for key cards when holding fewer than 3. There are certainly occasions when it is right to ask for key cards when holding fewer than three, but normally the asker is the stronger hand.

[ArtK78]

There is nothing "standard" about allowing for zero instead of 3, or one instead of four in response to RKC. If it is the lower number, and it matters, you are already too high and should not have asked the question.

 

It is certainly correct that if the responder has the lower number you are already too high. That is why the asker should not have less than 3 key cards in most cases. It is the unusual case when it is correct to ask for key cards when holding less than 3.

[the_dude]

imho, 5NT should be bid by the person best placed to make an intelligent decision based on the answer. Clearly on this hand it is South. It would be ludicrous to "force" north to bid 5NT and then make him make a decision on which he has almost no information.

 

Art, your argument presumes that the opener will now "go crazy" because the bidding presumes 0 key cards but he actually has 3 so he needs to "catch up". However, under any agreement I've ever heard, bidding 5NT promises that we have all Keys (and the Q of trump) so I guess are we assuming that partner will just lose his mind?

[ArtK78]

imho, 5NT should be bid by the person best placed to make an intelligent decision based on the answer. Clearly on this hand it is South. It would be ludicrous to "force" north to bid 5NT and then make him make a decision on which he has almost no information.

 

Art, your argument presumes that the opener will now "go crazy" because the bidding presumes 0 key cards but he actually has 3 so he needs to "catch up". However, under any agreement I've ever heard, bidding 5NT promises that we have all Keys (and the Q of trump) so I guess are we assuming that partner will just lose his mind?

Let me try to make this clear.

 

There is a correct way to play RKCB. From the asker's point of view (the 4NT bidder) the procedure is to assume that partner has 0 key cards if he showed 0 or 3 and 1 key card if he showed 1 or 4. The 4NT bidder then signs off at the 5 level if the lower number of key cards is insufficient for slam.

 

From the responder's point of view, he should assume that if he has 3 or 4 key cards, there must be sufficient key cards for slam (on the assumption that the asker would not have bid 4NT if that were not true). Therefore, if he shows 0 or 3 key cards and has 3, or if he shows 1 or 4 key cards and has 4, he is to continue over partner's sign off AS IF PARTNER'S SIGN OFF WERE A SECOND ASK.

 

This is not "going crazy." This is how you play RKCB. If you don't follow this procedure, you are just assuming that partner has the higher number when he has shown strength. Most of the time, you will be right. But sooner or later you will be wrong.

[Cyberyeti]

Let me try to make this clear.

 

There is a correct way to play RKCB. From the asker's point of view (the 4NT bidder) the procedure is to assume that partner has 0 key cards if he showed 0 or 3 and 1 key card if he showed 1 or 4. The 4NT bidder then signs off at the 5 level if the lower number of key cards is insufficient for slam.

 

From the responder's point of view, he should assume that if he has 3 or 4 key cards, there must be sufficient key cards for slam (on the assumption that the asker would not have bid 4NT if that were not true). Therefore, if he shows 0 or 3 key cards and has 3, or if he shows 1 or 4 key cards and has 4, he is to continue over partner's sign off AS IF PARTNER'S SIGN OFF WERE A SECOND ASK.

 

This is not "going crazy." This is how you play RKCB. If you don't follow this procedure, you are just assuming that partner has the higher number when he has shown strength. Most of the time, you will be right. But sooner or later you will be wrong.

I wouldn't be as dogmatic as you have been, but this is certainly how I play. It's even more important to play this way if you're using non 4N asks with suits other than spades agreed where you may have a lot of space to work with and much of your cue bidding is done after keycard.

[aguahombre]

It is the unusual case when it is correct to ask for key cards when holding less than 3.

we ask for keys when the previous bidding is such that our side cannot be missing 3 keys. The asker's number is on a sliding scale of that. We will know whether the answer is 0/3 or 1/4. If we need to make allowance for not knowing, we are using RKB inappropriately.

 

In the OP case, opener's auction makes it clear she has more than zero (therefore, 3), making this side issue totally offtrack.

[han]

Let me try to make this clear.

 

There is a correct way to play RKCB. From the asker's point of view (the 4NT bidder) the procedure is to assume that partner has 0 key cards if he showed 0 or 3 and 1 key card if he showed 1 or 4. The 4NT bidder then signs off at the 5 level if the lower number of key cards is insufficient for slam.

 

From the responder's point of view, he should assume that if he has 3 or 4 key cards, there must be sufficient key cards for slam (on the assumption that the asker would not have bid 4NT if that were not true). Therefore, if he shows 0 or 3 key cards and has 3, or if he shows 1 or 4 key cards and has 4, he is to continue over partner's sign off AS IF PARTNER'S SIGN OFF WERE A SECOND ASK.

 

This is not "going crazy." This is how you play RKCB. If you don't follow this procedure, you are just assuming that partner has the higher number when he has shown strength. Most of the time, you will be right. But sooner or later you will be wrong.

 

I disagree with what you have written, if you know partner has 3 keycards, there is no need to complicate matter by bidding 5S. 5NT is much better.

 

I also disagree with your perception that you can give the Ultimate Answer to bridge questions.

[mikeh]

Art, you are out to lunch on this one, and the more you post in an attempt to defend the indefensible, the more out to lunch you appear.

 

There is zero way to place N with a hand that warrants the 3N bid without his having any keycards. One caters to the '0' on 3/0 or the 1 in 1/4 responses only when one is in doubt as to which it is. I should add that in 30+ years of playing keycard, I have never been in doubt and strongly believe that if one is in doubt, that one has probably misbid the hand to that point. But I concede that the situation may (rarely) arise without glaring prior error.

 

But it hasn't arisen here, so 5N is crystal clear, as is the subsequent call of 7♠.

 

Bad major suit breaks may haunt us....but the odds have to be overwhelming in our favour and the contract may be flat out cold.

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj854ha6543djcat&w=s76hqt872d97ck532&n=sakt92hjdakq6cq64&e=s3hk9dt85432cj987&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2np3np4np5dp5np6dp]399|300[/hv]

 

Here's the full hand.

[VM1973]

Villa attempts to construct a hand that is

A) A king better than a minimum opener; and,

B) Contains 0 keycards.

 

Reference:

QJ854

A6543

J

A10

 

Attempt with a singleton:

109765

K

KQ102

KQJ

 

Hmmmm... ZPs 16 + 5 + 4 + 4 = 29. This isn't a king better than a minimum opener.

DPs. 4+4+2+2+1+7=20. Nope, that doesn't work either.

HCPs. 3+3+3+2+2+1+shape... maybe 2 = 16. Maybe... Stretching. Most people won't count the stiff king and shape too.

 

With void:

109765

-

KQ102

KQJ2

 

ZPs. 4+4+4+1+5+4+5=27 ZPs. Not a king better.

DPs. 4+4+4+1+10=23. Not a king better.

HCPs. 3+3+4+1+shape 5 = 16. Maybe with HCPs and a void, it is barely possible to construct a hand that fits, although a lot of HCP people don't count 5 points for a void, just 3.

 

Conclusion: Partner must have at least one key card to have bid the way he did.