Without Minorwood...

[32519]

An extract from my other thread:

 

Please stop playing "Minorwood."

 

As every other poster has said, playing a raise of 3D to 4D in an uncontested auction as asking for kecyards is, um, not recommended.

So then, without Minorwood, what is the recommended route to investigate a minor suit slam?

[Zelandakh]

If you want an ace asking bid after a 3 level preempt, try 4♣ over 3♦, ♥, or ♠, and 4♦ over 3♣. I would not use normal RKC responses, either, as some of them should be impossible by a preemptive opener. I'm sure if you search the web you can find this convention, with a decent response structure. Or perhaps someone will post on it here.

The typical responses to a key card ask by a preemptive hand are 0, 1, 1+q, 2, 2+q.

[32519]

<snip>

I read those responses Zel.

1. 4♣ over 3♦ or 4♦ over 3♣ is still some form of Minorwood.

2. The typical responses to a key card ask by a preemptive hand are 0, 1, 1+q, 2, 2+q. All this is doing is changing the meaning of the responses. It is still some form of Minorwood.

 

PhilKing says, "Please stop playing Minorwood." He didn't say, "Use a different Minorwood answering structure." I took his reply literally, "Please stop playing Minorwood." So now I chuck it out and want to know, "Without Minorwood, what is the recommended route to investigate a minor suit slam?

[Zelandakh]

There are many times where bidding 4 of a minor can lead to a key card sequence for a minor - Kickback for clubs; optional Blackwood; etc. However, Minorwood is specifically where bidding 4 of the agreed minor is the (unconditional) key card ask. Therefore, neither of the 2 sequences in your point 1 are Minorwood. Let's call 3♦ - 4♣ Roman Key Card Gerber and 3♣ - 4♦ Kickback for now. You can call them Minorwood too if you want, just so long as you do not confuse this with the Minorwood that the rest of us use.

[aguahombre]

To answer possibly clarify your quotes in the OP:

 

Frances was saying a simple furtherance of a 3D preempt is just that, and too valuable to be used as Minorwood. You could wait a very long time to want to use it after a 3D preempt. She was not addressing the merits of Minorwood itself.

 

I think Phil might have been suggesting that YOU should stop using Minorwood. :D

 

Seriously, the first time I ever encountered Minorwood ---never having heard of it prior --- was on an auction where the minor was raised from 3 to 4.

 

(2S) 3C (P) 4C. 3C is not a preempt, and 4C as invitational seems like trying to stop on a dime; so, Minorwood seemed like an excellent agreement to me...leaving 3S for probes and all other advances natural.

[PhilKing]

PhilKing says, "Please stop playing Minorwood."

 

What I said was 'please stop playing "Minorwood"'.

 

The point was that you interpret most bids of 4m as "Minorwood" (and your partner, who seems to be a Key Card junkie, interprets all bids of 4m as Minorwood). The standard rule is that you have to have agreed the minor already for Minorwood to apply, so what you are playing is not really Minorwood.

 

This link http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/minorwood_convention.html is not necessarily the definitive word on the subject but it outlines the principles pretty well.

 

The point is that, if the first time you can agree the minor is at the four level, even if the auction is clearly forcing, it is presumptious to define it as "Minorwood" - cue bidding should take precedence. Look at it this way: if key cards are all that matter, cue bidding will usually work fine, but if cue bidding was necessary, either because that way you can find a key control or simply find out if partner is suitable, then Minorwood is not likely to get you a sensible result. An example:

 

♠AKxxx

♥xx

♦AQxx

♣xx

 

You deal and the auction goes:

 

1♠-3♣-3♦-Pass

4♦-Pass-4♥-Pass

4♠-Pass-6♣-All Pass

 

You have an easy auction because partner has:

 

♠Qx

♥Axx

♦KJxxxx

♣Kx

 

(I'm ignoring the issue of what 4♣ would mean in this auction, since that is another can of worms).

 

Playing "Minorwood", partner would respond 5♣ to 4♦ (aggressively showing two plus the trump queen when holding 6 trumps) and you would have no clue how to proceed. If you say to me that partner would continue to slam over 5♦, then I hope you hold:

 

♠AKJxx

♥KQx

♦Qxxx

♣x

 

Your only way forward should never be Minorwood. In an uncontested auction such as 1♠-2♣-3♥ you will have a choice between cue bidding and Minorwood, but where the minor has not been agreed, 4m merely sets the suit.

[32519]

<snip>

Thanks Phil! Without realising it you have probably answered my question in the other Minorwood thread, “Who is right and who is wrong?” Below is an extract from the link you posted:

From the opening paragraph –

 

The origin of this variation of the Blackwood conventional method is unknown. As the designation signifies, this variation is only employed when the established or inferred trump suit is a Minor suit. Since there are several idle bids in the application of this conventional method, many variations abound.

 

From further down the article –

 

The partnership is urged to experiment with several versions and then agree upon one definite form of the concept, one which is most comfortable for the partnership and which cannot easily become confusing.

 

Here lies the root of our problem. We only had a partial agreement (uncontested auctions), nothing about contested auctions. But even this is not entirely accurate.

1. We have an agreement that partner must have a very good reason to remove a pre-empt in order to play in a different suit. Why? For the simple reason that inevitably the pre-empters hand is completely useless outside the pre-empt suit whereas partner’s hand possibly has good trick taking value in the other 3 suits.

2. We have tried to minimise memory load by, wherever possible, have bids retain the same meaning if the opposition intervention does not hamper or obstruct our normal continuation bidding structure.

3. We also have an agreement not to push the opponents into game in a major when the bidding and your own hand strength and holding in their suit indicates that they will probably be making 10 tricks.

4. We also have a converse agreement to point 3, and that is, “push them to game if you are confident of playing them down.”

5. So in the other Minorwood thread, the t/o X did not interfere in any way, nor did it consume any bidding space. Partner’s bid of 4♦ now became a double-edged sword. It retains its original meaning of Minorwood and I was expected to respond accordingly. For Zel’s benefit: We have adopted your response structure when answering to a pre-empt. So my answer over 4♦ would be 4NT (1 keycard with the trump queen).

The double-edged sword? If the opponents bid 4M (or even 5M) over a 5♦ contract, partner with the big hand can now extract a juicy penalty double.

 

Thanks to Phil I can now answer my own question: It was me that was wrong!

[rhm]

What I said was 'please stop playing "Minorwood"'.

 

The point was that you interpret most bids of 4m as "Minorwood" (and your partner, who seems to be a Key Card junkie, interprets all bids of 4m as Minorwood). The standard rule is that you have to have agreed the minor already for Minorwood to apply, so what you are playing is not really Minorwood.

 

This link http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/minorwood_convention.html is not necessarily the definitive word on the subject but it outlines the principles pretty well.

 

The point is that, if the first time you can agree the minor is at the four level, even if the auction is clearly forcing, it is presumptious to define it as "Minorwood" - cue bidding should take precedence. Look at it this way: if key cards are all that matter, cue bidding will usually work fine, but if cue bidding was necessary, either because that way you can find a key control or simply find out if partner is suitable, then Minorwood is not likely to get you a sensible result. An example:

 

♠AKxxx

♥xx

♦AQxx

♣xx

 

You deal and the auction goes:

 

1♠-3♣-3♦-Pass

4♦-Pass-4♥-Pass

4♠-Pass-6♣-All Pass

 

You have an easy auction because partner has:

 

♠Qx

♥Axx

♦KJxxxx

♣Kx

 

(I'm ignoring the issue of what 4♣ would mean in this auction, since that is another can of worms).

 

Playing "Minorwood", partner would respond 5♣ to 4♦ (aggressively showing two plus the trump queen when holding 6 trumps) and you would have no clue how to proceed. If you say to me that partner would continue to slam over 5♦, then I hope you hold:

 

♠AKJxx

♥KQx

♦Qxxx

♣x

 

Your only way forward should never be Minorwood. In an uncontested auction such as 1♠-2♣-3♥ you will have a choice between cue bidding and Minorwood, but where the minor has not been agreed, 4m merely sets the suit.

Interesting discussion, but my preferences are the other way round.

Undoubtedly there are hands where control bidding is useful.

The typical hands are where you have an uncontrolled side suit, typically a small doubleton. No surprise that your example has two of them.

Playing minorwood on your example

♠AKxxx

♥xx

♦AQxx

♣xx

 

I would not use minorwood but (picture) jump to game in diamonds and hope my partner would pick up the message.

 

RKB and minorwood works best, when you have holes in your key-suites and / or only the number of keycards matters.

Here control bidding does much worse and modern control bidding does often not differentiate well between second and first round controls. Solidity in the trump suit can not be shown by control bidding.

It also helps the defense. It would be easy to show examples but I think examples prove nothing here.

 

Now I am not suggesting that raising a three level minor preempt should be Minorwood.

But for me Minorwood applies whenever 4 of a minor is a suggestion as a strain, forcing and an obvious slam invitation.

I like hard facts about partner's hand before deciding whether to risk slam or not, even if it does not resolve always all my problems.

This tends to work particularly well when you want to decide between small and grand slams, because for grand slams you need even better assurance than for small ones.

 

To cite Mr. Compton on brigeguys:

 

The popular idea that you must have a low-level RKC available at all times is overrated. Taking a natural and forcing four-of-a-minor call to define it as RKC especially misplaces priorities. In bidding, you need weak auctions, invitational auctions, and game-forcing auctions all before RKC. To say that forcing to slam with the correct number of KC's + trump Q is more important than a natural slam try is to reverse the frequency of those hands occurring. There are more slam tries than Ace asking hands.

 

Well said and true before the advance of sophisticated key-card asks.

But the claim that you are better of making a "natural slam try" presumably followed by control bidding is unproven.

I doubt it.

I find that a key card response not invariably but far more often than not gives me the information I yearn.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

 

Well said and true before the advance of sophisticated key-card asks.

But the claim that you are better of making a "natural slam try" presumably followed by control bidding is unproven.

I doubt it.

I find that a key card response not invariably but far more often than not gives me the information I yearn.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

You can have both - where 4♣ agrees clubs, for instance, I play 4♦ as RKC (and similarly 4♥ over 4♦ unless hearts have been bid naturally).

 

So in my cue bid example hand, partner would roll out key card. A slight punt, admittedly.

[Vampyr]

So in the other Minorwood thread, the t/o X did not interfere in any way, nor did it consume any bidding space. Partner’s bid of 4♦ now became a double-edged sword. It retains its original meaning of Minorwood and I was expected to respond accordingly. For Zel’s benefit: We have adopted your response structure when answering to a pre-empt. So my answer over 4♦ would be 4NT (1 keycard with the trump queen).

The double-edged sword? If the opponents bid 4M (or even 5M) over a 5♦ contract, partner with the big hand can now extract a juicy penalty double.

 

You have a serious problem here: partner cannot raise the preempt to 4; only to 5. Presumably partner will raise to the appropriate level in the first place, so if he raises to 4 he is either happy to defend at the 4-level, or he thinks the 5-level will be too expensive or a phantom.

 

If you combined all of your keycard responses into "PASS", your methods might work.

[aguahombre]

so if he raises to 4 he is either happy to defend at the 4-level, or he thinks the 5-level will be too expensive or a phantom.

There are more reasons for a simple raise to the 4-level, and the 3D bidder needn't be concerned about why partner did it. You might be surprised how often that little raise, which doesn't infere with much, can throw doubt into their auction and make the wheels come off.

[32519]

It’s a trade-off which we chose. The preempter has already announced a minimum hand. So the balance of the points are divided amongst the remaining 3 hands.

 

Our double-edged sword has this in its favour: Basically we are committing the auction at least to game, slam try not excluded. When the opps are vul vs nv, 4m may just be enough to entice them to bid game where partner is looking to extract a bigger score for our side via a penalty double. 2-down doubled vul gives us 500, whereas 5m making only gives us 400. With a weaker hand but enough playing strength/fit with preempter, we will jump straight to 5m, often as a sacrifice. 2-down doubled at nv is minus 300 versus their 420 or 620 making.

 

When the bidding/own holding in partner’s suit/their suit indicates that the auction belongs to them, we don’t want to push them unnecessarily into game.

 

You have a serious problem here: partner cannot raise the preempt to 4; only to 5. Presumably partner will raise to the appropriate level in the first place, so if he raises to 4 he is either happy to defend at the 4-level, or he thinks the 5-level will be too expensive or a phantom.

But now that you mention it, maybe it is something else we should look at.

 

Now we can violate the term “balancing” in any way we choose. So how about this as a starter to get some better suggestions from you and the other forum posters?

In an auction like this:

3m-X-P-3M

P-P-?

What now? The points seem to be divided more or less evenly between the 2 sides. Do we let them play in 3M? If they make we get minus 140. With something in opener’s suit and the balance of the HCP, nothing stops partner from bidding 4m now. In this sequence it can never be Minorwood. It is competitive expecting to go no more than 1 down doubled.

 

Over to you!

[Zelandakh]

Voluntarily taking the last guess in a preempted auction is rarely a good idea when there is an easy way of avoiding it. I have told my partner that if I bid this way I am hoping to get doubled - are you?

[aguahombre]

Voluntarily taking the last guess in a preempted auction is rarely a good idea when there is an easy way of avoiding it. I have told my partner that if I bid this way I am hoping to get doubled - are you?

Yep. You make your choice on the previous round, and hope the opponents' last guess was wrong. If you had support, passed previously, and are now considering a raise, what were you hoping for? To put down the dummy in 3DX? Maybe in party bridge.

[32519]

I think both of you have overlooked my argument. NV we pre-empt with 5-11 HCP. At NV partner does not know if you are at the lower end or the upper end of the range. Additionally we don’t want to push to the opps into game when WE THINK they can make. In the auction posted, THE OPPONENTS THEMSELVES don’t believe that they have enough for game. So now partner of the preempter (with some values) should be able to work out that preempter is at the upper end of the range and decides to compete. Minus 100 versus minus 140 is obviously a better result.

[Free]

So then, without Minorwood, what is the recommended route to investigate a minor suit slam?

Not popular at all because it's quite unknown and requires a lot of discussion with your partner, but I'm really fond of Kickback Turbo (read my blog). It combines cuebids with keycard responses.

 

However, I have agreed that a jump to 4m in a GF auction is minorwood, because you can always take a slow route when necessary.

[Vampyr]

I think both of you have overlooked my argument. NV we pre-empt with 5-11 HCP. At NV partner does not know if you are at the lower end or the upper end of the range. Additionally we don’t want to push to the opps into game when WE THINK they can make. In the auction posted, THE OPPONENTS THEMSELVES don’t believe that they have enough for game. So now partner of the preempter (with some values) should be able to work out that preempter is at the upper end of the range and decides to compete. Minus 100 versus minus 140 is obviously a better result.

 

I think that you have overlooked the two posts above this one. The opponents are not sure they don't have enough for game; they are guessing -- that is one big reason that you have preeempted.

 

You are correct, though, in your assumption that they are guessing a lot more accurately than they would be if they were forced to make their guess at the 4-level. Where you go wrong is in arguing that this is a reason not to raise immediately to the 4-level; it is quite the opposite.

 

When no one in the world agrees with you, sometimes it is you who are wrong.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 

However, I have agreed that a jump to 4m in a GF auction is Minorwood, because you can always take a slow route when necessary.

You are in good company . Max Hardy says this classic Game Force auction shows the 4m-jump as Minorwood :

 

1m - 2m! ( Inverted, GF )

4m = Minorwood

[akwoo]

I think both of you have overlooked my argument. NV we pre-empt with 5-11 HCP. At NV partner does not know if you are at the lower end or the upper end of the range. Additionally we don’t want to push to the opps into game when WE THINK they can make. In the auction posted, THE OPPONENTS THEMSELVES don’t believe that they have enough for game. So now partner of the preempter (with some values) should be able to work out that preempter is at the upper end of the range and decides to compete. Minus 100 versus minus 140 is obviously a better result.

 

You are saying that you have a better idea of whether the opponents can make game than the opponents themselves do?

 

Wow you must play in a very weak field.

[Vampyr]

You are in good company . Max Hardy says this classic Game Force auction shows the 4m-jump as Minorwood :

 

1m - 2m! ( Inverted, GF )

4m = Minorwood

 

I believe that this is commonly played even if the 2m is 10+.

[Free]

I believe that this is commonly played even if the 2m is 10+.

Yeah, obviously :)

[32519]

Voluntarily taking the last guess in a preempted auction is rarely a good idea when there is an easy way of avoiding it. I have told my partner that if I bid this way I am hoping to get doubled - are you?

The short answer: No.

The long answer: No, but I am expecting it.

 

Players are like forever designing news systems, new conventions, fixing holes in the system which only came to light at the table, etc. This is our current agreements. Only once we have sufficient hard evidence that something is failing do we change it. On this particular hand IT WAS ME WHO FAILED the system by looking at a partial agreement in isolation and not our system seen as a whole. WHEN THE SYSTEM FAILS then we change whatever is failing. Needless to say that there is a major difference between the two.

 

We quite like our double edged sword. Should you ever decide to experiment with this, at least acknowledge where the idea came from.

[Vampyr]

We quite like our double edged sword. Should you ever decide to experiment with this, at least acknowledge where the idea came from.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about that!

 

I think that systems tinkering is great, and it is what has provided us with the systems and conventions that are popular today. But there is something to be said for not wasting time and energy trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

If something so simple as giving up a raise from 3♦ to 4♦ had any merit, someone would have thought of it before now.

[32519]

If something so simple as giving up a raise from 3♦ to 4♦ had any merit, someone would have thought of it before now.

Guess what? The majority is not always right. A classic example (not known by many) where the majority was wrong, can be found in Acts.

 

Acts 27:9-13

 

9 When considerable time had passed and the voyage was now dangerous, since even the fast was already over, Paul began to admonish them, 10 and said to them, "Men, I perceive that the voyage will certainly be with damage and great loss, not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives."

11 But the centurion was more persuaded by the pilot and the captain of the ship than by what was being said by Paul. 12 Because the harbor was not suitable for wintering, the majority reached a decision to put out to sea from there, if somehow they could reach Phoenix, a harbor of Crete, facing southwest and northwest, and spend the winter there. 13 When a moderate south wind came up, supposing that they had attained their purpose, they weighed anchor and began sailing along Crete, close inshore.

 

If you don’t know what happened to the ship and its cargo you can look up the rest of the story yourself.

[mike777]

Guess what? The majority is not always right. A classic example (not known by many) where the majority was wrong, can be found in Acts.

 

Acts 27:9-13

 

9 When considerable time had passed and the voyage was now dangerous, since even the fast was already over, Paul began to admonish them, 10 and said to them, "Men, I perceive that the voyage will certainly be with damage and great loss, not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives."

11 But the centurion was more persuaded by the pilot and the captain of the ship than by what was being said by Paul. 12 Because the harbor was not suitable for wintering, the majority reached a decision to put out to sea from there, if somehow they could reach Phoenix, a harbor of Crete, facing southwest and northwest, and spend the winter there. 13 When a moderate south wind came up, supposing that they had attained their purpose, they weighed anchor and began sailing along Crete, close inshore.

 

If you don’t know what happened to the ship and its cargo you can look up the rest of the story yourself.

 

 

side note the management and workers said to sail but what did the owner of the ship and owners of the cargo say? I mean those that had real money at risk?