inquiry Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 [hv=pc=n&s=skj72haqj7d987ckq&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1np2cp2hp5cp?]133|200|Had this one and partner and I were not on the same page despite a meta rule for this situation. Ignoring for the moment, how many key cards do you think you have for partner? After some voting, I will mention what the meta rule is and see if that might alter your answer. [/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevahound Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 I'm probably missing something obvious, but I couldn't have a worse hand for partner on this auction, could I? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 Partner asked a question I give the answer. I appear to have one key card I can't think of a reason to show a different number. Exclusion is not used for me in the first instance to exercise any judgement. It is for me to count up my key cards and trust that partner has exercised good judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 I thought the question was going to be about 0 vs 1, not 1 vs 2... If we had had an agreement about 5-keycard exclusion, I trust you would've told us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 One key card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) I can see a case for two keycards: With 6 or 7 hearts, p might have taken a different route since he would have been interested in the queen. If he has eight small ones we have effectively ♥AK. Then again, he could have eight to the king in which case he'll probably bid seven missing ♦A if we show two. If he has seven to the king it probably doesn't matter since he won't bid seven missing ♥Q anyway. Or maybe he would? We could have three heart or the queen or the finesse could work. Obviously if he has eight he is more likely to have the king. So showing two keycards is much more likely to work poorly than to work well. I show one. If he signs off we might just be missing one ace but again, he is more likely to have ♥K and be missing the other aces. Edit: lol, I somehow thought he had transfered rather than Stayman :)It would make some sense to show two, then. It's only if p is 4-6 in the majors that the queen is not relevant. Edited July 18, 2014 by helene_t Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 Helen, which hand with an 8-card suit bids Stayman? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcphee Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 Gee how many do I have? Can I make any valid excuse to tell I have more or less? Highly doubtful imho. If partner doesn't have his call it isn't my problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhm Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 Why is this posted under "Expert-Class Bridge" ? Do you want to establish a meta rule whereby a limited hand shows the number of key-cards minus the ones held in the void suit? There may be merit in this idea, but my mental capacity for disasters at the Bridge table is already on overrun. :D Rainer Herrmann 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromageGB Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 I give the simple answer of one, but I can see that there is a case for playing 6 ace responses, as partner is likely to be {445}x shape, so two might be your agreement. Edit : If that is your agreement, I play a 3-suited method of ace asking that also counts the Q of trumps in the initial response, so that makes 3 key cards. Putting them all in one bid, when you know all 3 suits are important, gives room for a side suit Q ask when this can be important for a running suit and the 13th trick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 I don't see how a meta rule can really apply. If you wanted a specific rule that the side kings count in situations where our trump fit can't be that big, then that's fine (although I think it is folly, since it is surely an accident in waiting). Besides, partner could have: ♠Axx♥AJxx♦AKQxxx♣- On which he just wants a straight response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahydra Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 I don't see how a meta rule can really apply. If you wanted a specific rule that the side kings count in situations where our trump fit can't be that big, then that's fine (although I think it is folly, since it is surely an accident in waiting). Besides, partner could have: ♠Axx♥AJxx♦AKQxxx♣- On which he just wants a straight response. I don't think he has the HAJ given that we have those. :) I also can't see why one would give any other response than one key card here. We have wasted KQ so no upgrades are possible, and we don't want partner blasting grand off an ace... I will show the HQ if he asks for it, of course. ahydra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromageGB Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 Besides, partner could have: ♠Axx♥AJxx♦AKQxxx♣- On which he just wants a straight response.Does he? Wouldn't he like to know immediately of the ♠K, so that he can then ask for the ♠Q? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 Does he? Wouldn't he like to know immediately of the ♠K, so that he can then ask for the ♠Q?How would he go about that, if that were his aim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wank Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 Wouldn't he like to know immediately of the ♠K, so that he can then ask for the ♠Q? no 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 Does he? Wouldn't he like to know immediately of the ♠K, so that he can then ask for the ♠Q? Not unless you need 15 tricks for a grand slam. And yes, I transposed the heart honours, but the point about answering honestly holds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromageGB Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 How would he go about that, if that were his aim?If your keycard reply showed the number of keycards (out of 7, AK in each suit plus the trump Q), and you had all of them between you, then the next step could be the side Q ask. I have 4 step responses to the side Q ask; none, lower ranking, higher ranking, both. For this to work and keep below 6♥ on the wrong reply, this hypothetical responder hand would need to hear 6♣ or lower as the keycard response. Over 6♣, 6♦ is the side Q ask, and "none" puts you in the small slam, while the hoped-for 6NT lets you bid 7♥. I don't play this over exclusion myself, but have it as part of the 3-suited open continuations, where the bidding starts lower. If you played it over exclusion, you would probably want to have compacted responses with an assumption that when teller has opened he will have a minimum of 2 out of the 7 - he can't have 0, and 1 is unlikely in this case. Your step keycard responses here could then be 2or5, 3or6, 4or7. The bidding could go 5♣ 5♥ showing the 3 you need to make the complete set of 7, 5♠(side Q ask) 6♦(1, the higher ranking), 7♥. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromageGB Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 Not unless you need 15 tricks for a grand slam.Maybe that's why I am not an expert; I never trust myself in a grand slam unless I can see 15 tricks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted July 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 It seems that world is voting one key card. See if this would affect your decision. Partner's auction showed hearts and spades. Why? With just hearts he would transfer to 2♥ then use Exclusion. The fact he went through stayman then jumped to 5♣ showed a spade suit by clear implication. Our agreement is after notrump opening (1 or 2NT), if responder shows a two suiter then uses Blackwood after a fit is found, we use SIX keycard blackwood, four aces, and the kings of the two anchor suits partner showed (this we got from Book on Keycard Blackwood years ago). Partner agreed with all of you that say to show only one keycard. I followed what I thought was our agreement to show two (spade king, and heart ace). No real problem for us, we reached the laydown 6♥ contact, partner just tanked for a week before he bid it. He was missing the diamond ACE, and probably should have asked about the heart queen to see if I could I could show the ♠K and heart queen. If YOU HAD SUCH an agreement related to responder with two suiters, would you have shown two key cards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 No, I don't see why he couldn't be 3460. In any case he hasn't shown a two-suiter. As it happens my diamonds are weak but p doesn't know this. He might think that ♠K is not important because my spade losers might go on his diamonds. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevahound Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 It seems that world is voting one key card. See if this would affect your decision. Partner's auction showed hearts and spades. Why? With just hearts he would transfer to 2♥ then use Exclusion. The fact he went through stayman then jumped to 5♣ showed a spade suit by clear implication. Our agreement is after notrump opening (1 or 2NT), if responder shows a two suiter then uses Blackwood after a fit is found, we use SIX keycard blackwood, four aces, and the kings of the two anchor suits partner showed (this we got from Book on Keycard Blackwood years ago). Partner agreed with all of you that say to show only one keycard. I followed what I thought was our agreement to show two (spade king, and heart ace). No real problem for us, we reached the laydown 6♥ contact, partner just tanked for a week before he bid it. He was missing the diamond ACE, and probably should have asked about the heart queen to see if I could I could show the ♠K and heart queen. If YOU HAD SUCH an agreement related to responder with two suiters, would you have shown two key cards? Would your partner not Stayman first with just one major? Mine would. If partner genuinely has a club void, he's more likely to have 4-5 spades than 3 or fewer, but he can have fewer, and there's no reason to think he's focused on both M's as opposed to both reds, etc... Exclusion eats up a ton of room, and as such should be for a specific (rare) hand, not anytime I'm sort of slammish with a side void. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 If YOU HAD SUCH an agreement related to responder with two suiters, would you have shown two key cards? I think this line of reasoning is crazy. In fact you should have a meta agreement forbidding inferential use of meta-agreements. They are for analagous or defined undiscussed sequences - not for apparently logical inferences. My subjective impression is that Exclusion RKCB loses an average of about 5 imps per use worldwide. It's the most error prone gadget out there right now. And since most of us use Stayman with 4H and a longer minor, your inference about spades is flawed to start with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted July 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 I think this line of reasoning is crazy. In fact you should have a meta agreement forbidding inferential use of meta-agreements. They are for analagous or defined undiscussed sequences - not for apparently logical inferences. My subjective impression is that Exclusion RKCB loses an average of about 5 imps per use worldwide. It's the most error prone gadget out there right now. And since most of us use Stayman with 4H and a longer minor, your inference about spades is flawed to start with. If partner had hearts and a longer minor and slam interest, he would bid 2♠ over 2♥, to show that. My bid would be 2NT, and he would show his long minor or jump to exclusion. This would deny spades. We use that auction a lot, so I knew he had spades. So in fact if he had the AKQxx of diamonds, he wouldn't bother showing the two suiter, he would bid 2♠ then 5♣. If he had, say AQxxx of diamonds, he would bid 2♠, then 3♦, then 5♣. At least that is how that is suppose to go. So I had no doubt he had a major two suiter. We commonly use the slam try in other major after stayman when holding a major-minor two suiter, but he hadn't thought the implication of this auction. He could have bid 2♠ then rebid 3♠ and then he would have been unable to jump to 5♣. I am willing to accept that everyone disagrees with me, including my partner, and admit defeat on this issue. I was just wondering if I could convince anyone there was method in my madness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 Our agreement is after notrump opening (1 or 2NT), if responder shows a two suiter then uses Blackwood after a fit is found, we use SIX keycard blackwood, four aces, and the kings of the two anchor suits partner showed (this we got from Book on Keycard Blackwood years ago). If YOU HAD SUCH an agreement related to responder with two suiters, would you have shown two key cards?If I had an agreement whereby my hand contained two keycards, then I would show two keycards. This should be obvious? If I was with a pickup partner and hence guessing at agreements, this is certainly not one I would try, even with an expert. In fact I would probably not try exclusion at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 18, 2014 Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 If partner had hearts and a longer minor and slam interest, he would bid 2♠ over 2♥, to show that. My bid would be 2NT, and he would show his long minor or jump to exclusion. This would deny spades. We use that auction a lot, so I knew he had spades. So in fact if he had the AKQxx of diamonds, he wouldn't bother showing the two suiter, he would bid 2♠ then 5♣. If he had, say AQxxx of diamonds, he would bid 2♠, then 3♦, then 5♣. At least that is how that is suppose to go. So I had no doubt he had a major two suiter. We commonly use the slam try in other major after stayman when holding a major-minor two suiter, but he hadn't thought the implication of this auction. He could have bid 2♠ then rebid 3♠ and then he would have been unable to jump to 5♣. I am willing to accept that everyone disagrees with me, including my partner, and admit defeat on this issue. I was just wondering if I could convince anyone there was method in my madness. Over 2♥, did partner have a way to show a slam-try with both majors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.