Don't want to play clubs!!!!!!!!!

[scarletv]

Team

[hv=pc=n&e=sjhqdk2cakqjt8753&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1d1s2c2spp3s(cue)p3np4cp4dp]133|200[/hv]2♣ forcing

3♠ cue asking

3NT stopper in ♠

4♣ RKCB

4♦ don't want to play clubs!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PhilKing]

Well it's your system, but I assume I follow with 4♥ now saying I do want to play in clubs and I really do want to know how many aces you have.

[Fluffy]

4NT is the bid for "I don't want to play slam".

[steve2005]

Ever think that 4♦ could be 0/3 keycards?! Was there table talk to suggest otherwise?! or maybe your playing 1430 in which case it's 1 KC.

[mgoetze]

Ever think that 4♦ could be 0/3 keycards?! Was there table talk to suggest otherwise?! or maybe your playing 1430 in which case it's 1 KC.

Ever think that some people might play bridge with people they know rather than random strangers?

 

This convention ("bedingte Asfrage") is very popular in Germany (and, as far as I know, nowhere else in the world). PhilKing has correctly inferred the meaning of 4♥ in this convention.

[manudude03]

As others have pointed out, if 4C is essentially optional RKC, then 4H is a re-ask. Whether a hand with 2 key cards should be showing unwillingness is another question though.

[whereagles]

The 1♠ overcall makes it more likely that pard's HCPs are in the reds. So the agricultural solution should work:

 

1♦ (1♠) 6♣

 

Obviously you might bid a slam 2 aces off, but that's the price of simplicity. If you're sure pard won't mess it up, then you could try

 

1♦ (1♠) 4NT

 

as RKCB for diamonds, but since you have the king, it's ok. This way you can play 7 when pard has 3 aces - not so far-fetched.

[Bende]

The 1♠ overcall makes it more likely that pard's HCPs are in the reds. So the agricultural solution should work:

 

1♦ (1♠) 6♣

 

Obviously you might bid a slam 2 aces off, but that's the price of simplicity. If you're sure pard won't mess it up, then you could try

 

1♦ (1♠) 4NT

 

as RKCB for diamonds, but since you have the king, it's ok. This way you can play 7 when pard has 3 aces - not so far-fetched.

 

Does the agricultural solution include being able to bid slam in clubs to play after 1♦-(1♠)-4NT and a response?

[whereagles]

I don't know. But I do know that if it goes

 

1♦ (1♠) 4NT

5♥ 6♣

 

most partners would be too scared to pull it :)

[scarletv]

Partner normally opens according to the rule of 20 in first seat so I did not expect her to have no ace at all.

4♣ wasn't optional RKC (bedingte Asfrage) but minorwood asking keycards for clubs (03 14).

 

[hv=pc=n&e=sjhqdk2cakqjt8753&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1d1s2c2spp3s(cue)p3np4cp4dp7Nppp]133|200[/hv]

 

Actually she had two aces ... and we lost about 25 IMPs at one board.

7 NT lead ♦A

[ahydra]

Why blast 7NT? You can bid just 4NT (if that's a sign-off) or 5C. If partner has the higher number of keycards she will raise to 6, then you can raise to 7.

 

edit: also how did it not get doubled :)

 

ahydra

[Fluffy]

Just your everyday's minorwood disaster...

[ArtK78]

I don't know. But I do know that if it goes

 

1♦ (1♠) 4NT

5♥ 6♣

 

most partners would be too scared to pull it :)

Most play this 4NT bid as Ace Asking (old-fashioned responses - 0, 1, 2, 3) with no suit agreed, so that a subsequent bid of 6 or 7 of a suit is to play.

 

If you want to bid RKCB in diamonds, bid 2♠ first, then 4NT.

 

Without interference, make a forcing raise followed by 4NT to bid RKCB. The direct 4NT is still ace-asking with no suit agreement.

 

I believe that some play the direct 4NT bid as asking for specific aces, but I don't think it is worth the memory strain.

[aguahombre]

Just your everyday's minorwood disaster...

If you mean there are people who play Minorwood and shouldn't because they haven't established when to use it, and haven't agreed how to continue after the "don't like" option has been exercised.....then you are right on.

 

If the comment was just one of those things people say about Flannery, Mini-Roman, etc. it was less than useful here (or there). It is the subject of the thread, part of the conditions.

 

If we play "optional" Minorwood, of course 5H must be the insistence upon an RKC reply. In the OP case, I am not sure I would know if partner has Zero or 3 when she answers. Perhaps a better use for the 1st step would be to confirm Zero rather than express our opinion about the Club suit in general. I doubt on these auctions the 4C bidder will care about degree of fit --which is probably pretty much known. Maybe simple old 0-1-2 w/o-2w-etc. responses would make more sense.

[mgoetze]

Just your everyday's minorwood disaster...

Yes, we should all stop playing RKCB too because partner might answer 0/3 when they actually have 2.

[Fluffy]

Yes, we should all stop playing RKCB too because partner might answer 0/3 when they actually have 2.

 

RCKB is a lot more common, so it is not so prone to missunderstandings, it also doesn't interfere with natural slam tries turning partner into a puppet.

[bigbenvic]

Partner normally opens according to the rule of 20 in first seat so I did not expect her to have no ace at all.

4♣ wasn't optional RKC (bedingte Asfrage) but minorwood asking keycards for clubs (03 14).

 

[hv=pc=n&e=sjhqdk2cakqjt8753&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1d1s2c2spp3s(cue)p3np4cp4dp7Nppp]133|200[/hv]

 

Actually she had two aces ... and we lost about 25 IMPs at one board.

7 NT lead ♦A

 

I'm confused, how can 4♦ be don't want to play clubs? Or is this an altered Minorwood with the first step meaning that?

 

if partner has just bid it wrong then I move on as it's a misbid. Though your jump to 7nt seems odd, they could have KQxx KJx QJTxxx - 12 count 6-4 so easily a rule of 20 with no aces, even room to drop a Q or a J and could easily be Kx ♥ and singleton ♣. If no aces 4nt is your likely last making spot and it might be worth making it 'to play' opposite the lesser number of keycards, assuming you are not using it another way.

[Zelandakh]

I do not really get how 4♣ in this sequence can be Minorwood or "bedingte Assfrage" - surely if that is the agreement then 4♣ instead of 3♠ would have been the choice. Taking 3NT out into 4♣ should be something else - that might be "I want to play a minor but am not insisting on clubs" or "we are playing clubs, please cue bid something" or something else. If 4♣ was Minorwood rather than "BA", this could be an alternative route to handle the slam try in clubs. But having both sequences show precisely the same thing is just stupid. As, for that matter, is presenting us an OP for a partnership agreement in an auction where there was a disagreement.

 

For the record, there are plenty of different rules for Minorwood around. I think the most common form is for 4m to be an ask only after suit agreement at the 3 level or as a direct response to a 1m opening. So rather than saying that 4♦ meant either of "I don't like clubs" or "Tell me your key cards", why not provide the actual agreements. After all, noone agrees Minorwood without at least a cursory discussion about when it is on, right?

[aguahombre]

I do not really get how 4♣ in this sequence can be Minorwood or "bedingte Assfrage" - surely if that is the agreement then 4♣ instead of 3♠ would have been the choice. ?

Good point, Zel. That 3S bid instead of jumping to 4C on the second round could do nothing for the auction but create doubt: and it did.

[gszes]

Anytime one develops a complete hatred for something it makes logical thinking much

more difficult. A dispassionate look at this hand indicates a couple of things. First

is the high degree of probability of making slam anywhere from 6c to 7n. Second is the

low degree of probability of being able to avoid playing in the hated clubs suit. What

method(s) could be used to explore an alternative (reasonable) strain?

 

I would use 4s as key card for clubs (my original suit) as it is too tough to use 4c or 4d

as anything but natural and invitational. Then choose btn 5c 6c or 7n. That's a lot of club

contracts but it is one way to overcome hate:)

 

The problem with cue bidding is that far too many players include kings as controls (I am one of them)

and while the kings make bidding some slams easier it makes it tougher to gauge hands like this where

aces matter a huge amount more than kings.

[Free]

Just your everyday's minorwood disaster...

There's not much wrong with the methods, the issue is with the players. These methods are clearly too complicated for this pair and they would've done better with standard methods. When they're on the same wavelength this disaster wouldn't occur, whatever method they're playing. But for some reason one plays minorwood while the other one plays optional...

[scarletv]

Thanks all for replying. What I learned

1) There is a convention called "bedingte Asfrage" that I did not know before

2) When not 100 % sure if p has 0 or 3 KC I better ask instead of guessing as long as possible

 

 

There's not much wrong with the methods, the issue is with the players. These methods are clearly too complicated for this pair and they would've done better with standard methods. When they're on the same wavelength this disaster wouldn't occur, whatever method they're playing. But for some reason one plays minorwood while the other one plays optional...

Will you give up any convention when you misbid once? Do you argue the same way after misbidding Ghestem or any other convention? My p and I play the same convention but in this special board she just panicked having a void. I don't remember misbidding Minorwood with her before and we are playing it since a couple of years though we are obviously playing it different to what has been discussed in this forum and of course it could still be improved.

 

Due to a combination of external circumstances we are short in playing practice over the last two years which is the main reason for this accident. Unless the circumstances will change we will certainly not increase the complexity in our system as complexity needs exercise.

[Zelandakh]

You did not learn to discuss the difference between a direct 4m and bidding it after a cue + 3NT? :blink: Surely that was the #1 lesson of the hand...

[scarletv]

We have some situations where 4♣ or 4♦ should be understood as RKCB and others where it is initiating a cue bidding sequence. That works very well without opponents interfering. Sorry we are not so sophisticated in our agreements to have follow ups for each possible situation with opponents interfering. But we have quite clear rules when a 4m bid is RKCB. One of them is whenever 3NT was bid to play and the partner bids 4m this is RKCB on basis of that minor and not a cue. Maybe that is a bad rule I don't know but that is the agreement we have. I wouldn't play that in a pickup partnership undiscussed.

 

I did not need any cues from her after she bid 3NT and promised a ♠ stopper. But I needed that info to have a safe rescue in 4NT if she had only one ace. So all I wanted to know after 3NT was the number of aces.

[Free]

Will you give up any convention when you misbid once? Do you argue the same way after misbidding Ghestem or any other convention? My p and I play the same convention but in this special board she just panicked having a void. I don't remember misbidding Minorwood with her before and we are playing it since a couple of years though we are obviously playing it different to what has been discussed in this forum and of course it could still be improved.

 

Due to a combination of external circumstances we are short in playing practice over the last two years which is the main reason for this accident. Unless the circumstances will change we will certainly not increase the complexity in our system as complexity needs exercise.

You feel offended, but with your last paragraph you basically confirm what I said. Note that I didn't say you guys are too stupid or gave any reason why, but you actually did. You're short in playing practice which apparently makes this convention too difficult. So imo there are several solutions to avoid similar disasters: either you play more together, or you ditch complicated parts of the system. There's no shame in that.

 

I have a really good partner with whom I play just a couple of times a year. We play strong ♣ but a very simple version of it. It's definitely not optimal (wrongsiding for example), but we don't have bidding mistakes. Many times we discussed if our 1♣ structure should be updated, but we always come to the conclusion that it would just cause more problems than it would solve. Does it make us a better pair playing less-optimal methods? Looking at our results (some wins, some podiums) I'd say definitely!