I am perplexed. When you state upthread, “I have had a few inquiries why a few bids are not right. For simplicity sake I will bring them up and maybe someone else will take up the bastion [sic],” I interpret that as asking for input, asking for opinions, and requesting for others to chime in. Then, when you get what you asked for, you take umbrage.
I do not believe that posting what follows will have any effect. We shall see. So here goes.
“I really don’t like spending my time this way, but let’s clear some misconceptions.”This implies that you will somehow edify the masses--the uninformed--the ignorant. It’s condescending. It also implies that your words and opinions carry more weight and authority than others. Do they? If so, why?
“The need for a partner to echo the suit to set trump by suited bid, cue or other mechanism is not necessary 100% of the time. It is a good standby though.”I did not state that it was necessary 100% of the time. I stated, “if a suit can be agreed to.” To insert the phrase “necessary 100%,” as though it were something I stated or implied is a strawman argument.
“The common understanding when in DOUBT about what is trump is that the last bid suit is trump. Which over-rides the need to make it something different.”By editing my words, “common expert understanding” to “common understanding,” you change the meaning of my reply. Certainly you are aware that beginner and intermediate interpretations of a particular call will likely vary widely from those of an expert. “The common understanding when in DOUBT about what is trump is . . .” is in conflict with my preferred treatment. Why is your statement not a judgment, but mine is? As you can see, I disagree that the “last bid suit” is an optimal agreement.
“Uncontested yes, Contested no, and still need 4N for controls regardless of the pathway to 4N.”Huh? What is so difficult about showing support via a cuebid? Your “contested no” phrase seems to be a rather definitive statement that trump can’t be agreed via a cuebid. How do you show support in a contested auction?
Also, “still need 4NT for controls” implies that it is somehow required. It isn’t.
“1 
- 4N is very different than 1 
-4N for the expedient reason that 2/1 nor Jacoby apply (could soloway though). Even less so, considering the auction is a competitive auction involving a minor opener.”No kidding. And once again . . . I DID NOT STATE THAT Jacoby2NT or a GF 2/1 response did apply to a 1
open. This is easily verifiable by checking the replies above. But I do assume a basic 2/1 structure, with a forcing minor suit raise. Therefore, with a simple suit agreement response available (insert your pet forcing minor suit agreement response here), the auction 1
– 4NT is not RKC. Assuming either prior discussion, or a partner I trust to field this response properly, my “common expert understanding” statement applies here. Remember, too, that I stated that the immediate jump to 4NT was not RKCB for me. I wrote “Not for
me it’s not,” and for some reason you take umbrage at that? I was not aware that my understanding of current expert practice, and my application of same, distressed you so. I’ll be sure to clear it with you going forward <sarcasm>. Feel free, however, to apply your preferred “common understanding.”
“This is the main problem with reading a manual. There may be any number of reasons for RKC and the predicated postulate is not always if no echo, then blackwood. As to why we might want to eat up all that space here are a few possible reasons. 1) with a particular hand nothing in the middle matters 2) we want to conceal a weakness 3) we want opponents to lead a certain suit without any indication to switch 4) we want to show slam intent without fear of further interference (below 5 level)”What manual did you read? I assume you are referring to your own reading, because I did not refer to a manual. Reading, though, can elevate and improve one’s understanding about the game. I do it every day.
I will, however, refer to a “manual” now. In Kantar’s tome on RKCB, appropriately titled,
Roman KeyCard Blackwood, The Final Word, he states:
“It makes sense to have a general rule governing a direct 4NT response to an opening bid. If the responder doesn’t agree opener’s suit with a game-forcing response, opener’s suit should not be considered the agreed suit. It is easy enough to agree spades with a forcing raise. In this sequence there is no agreed suit and this should be a simple ace-ask. Period.”
Similarly, with minor suits, assuming Minorwood is in place, “the auction 1
– 4
is not Minorwood. It is merely preemptive.” To create a Minorwood auction you first go through an invitational or better sequence (such as 1
– 2
).
“On a side note, last night I ran 100,000 iterations modulating hand strength of responder and a 5 card suit that isn’t clubs or spades. The results were split between needing to know the K of the trump suit and it being immaterial. Surely we must admit that if all keys are not held, there is merit to knowing all aces but then there is the problem of missing two kings outside of spades placed made 4N as a keycard or BW problematic as the only place to run is 6N.”I’m not sure why you would limit your sim to only a five-card suit on the assumption that an immediate 4NT would or would not account for “needing to know the K of the trump suit.” That seems a strange use for the 4NT response. Or maybe I’m not understanding your paragraph above.
“Except when in doubt, accept the last suit bid as trump as previously aforementioned. Also it isn’t about “trust,” it is about partnership fidelity and agreements.” My use of the word “trust,” referred to trusting my pickup partner’s knowledge and understanding. Enough to field a particular bid. For example: Sitting in the IAC, or opposite an expert partner, I would expect this rather simple response (1
– 4
) to be understood, and the 4
response to be fielded properly. But in the BIL, my “trust” is not quite so high. If you wish to include “trust” under the umbrella of “agreements,” fine. But trust does come into play.
As far as accepting the “last suit bid” as trump, it depends on the auction and who my partner is.
A simple example: Assume you are playing 2/1 (I think we can all agree this simplifies slam bidding over a SAYC or SA system).
The auction 1
– 2
– 2
– 4NT. Is it RKC?
Using your formula, it’s RKC for
, the “last suit bid.” Fine
if that is your agreement, or even, your assumption about partner’s understanding of this sequence. Is it optimal? No, not in my opinion. Why? Because the 2
response created a game-force and, importantly, you have an easy way to agree trump by bidding 3
. Kantar, by the way espouses this, as do I. This sort of meta-agreement is logical. I realize you don’t agree with this, which is fine.
Please note my use of the words “
my partner,” and “
my opinion.” These are
my methods,
my opinions, and this is
my understanding of what is best.
For some reason, there seems to be a propensity to believe that every disagreement on methods, treatments, and ideas is a personal attack. It isn’t. There is a solution, which I will get to later.
“Let’s not be so dismissive yet. While you may not play them or maybe you do. It is important IF we have an alternative KeyCard ask then 4N should NOT be RKC or blackwood. Leads us back to quantitative which was posed earlier as 4N should “be something else.” I was not dismissive, hence my mention of them. And yes of course I play other methods. But the entire discussion about what 4NT is, and what it isn’t, revolved around the rather definitive statement that “we would all play 4NT in an uncontested auction as RKC,” as well as what the best response would be over the 2
interference. This, then, presupposes we are not using “an alternative KeyCard ask,” else it would be mentioned as part of our agreements in the OP.
“Probably best to stay away from judgments and unilateral ideas in a forum post. Perhaps even some sarcasm too I dunno.”Stay away from judgments? From unilateral (as determined by whom?) ideas? Um---It’s a forum.
Judgments such as this?:
1.
“Options that aren’t options . . .”I agree with your assessment (read opinion) here. But if I had disagreed, would it then be a judgment and bad?
2.
“I think we are missing a few points.”If it walks like a judgment, and talks like a judgment, it’s a duck.
3.
“Allow me to clarify a few things mis-informed . . .”I am at a loss as to why this is not a judgment, yet others are?
4.
“We would all play 4NT in an uncontested auction as RKC . . .”I disagree and stated as much. And I logically laid out my reasons. Why is your statement and your opinion an “idea,” and mine a judgment--apparently carrying with it some negative connotation?
5.
“6 unequivocably [sic] says ‘I have those values and my suit.’”Maybe. I’ve probably encountered a similar jump to slam at some point myself. Regardless, why is this not considered a judgment? What if someone were to disagree about the unequivocal definition? Would that be considered a judgment and unilateral idea? Does Agree = good, disagree = bad?
6.
“4NT is clear as a day.”I disagreed and explained my preferred response. The “clear as a day” statement is very emphatic. I would liken it to claiming that it is best. Why is my statement and opinion of what is best not equally clear as a day? (FWIW -- The current BW poll on 3
or 4NT as a response in the auction above is running 42:1. The votes that intrigue me, however, are the 4 who voted for Double, one from a very good player.)
7.
“But let’s clear some misconceptions.” This sounds like a disagreement is coming. And it did. Everything that followed was in direct contrast with my opinion. These are all judgments (read opinion). As are Ken’s. As are mine.
8. This:
“I admonish our members not to be categorically anchored to right or wrong dichotomy,” combined with this,
“Keep judgments and categorizations away from forum posts . . .”Seems to be in direct conflict with points 1 through 7 above. I can only assume that in the future the choice of words will be a bit less dogmatic.
The seemingly innocuous statement above that,
“This wasn’t to single anyone out” is in direct contrast with what it actually did. Every. Single. Statement. made was in response to a direct quote (with some slight edits) of mine. How much more “singled out” can you get?
Big deal, so you disagree with me, as I disagree with you. Disagreement is not a personal gauntlet thrown down. A simple solution that I propose is that I stay as far away from your posts as possible, lest my opinions ruffle feathers. I will stick to my own posts (and others), exchanging ideas and opinions—and yes judgments—with those willing to accept other’s opinions.
A simple forum guideline that I will suggest follows:
Anyone should feel welcome to play any methods they choose, and to have any opinion they wish. Additionally, anyone should feel welcome to contribute to the forum—to express those opinions, and to agree--or disagree--with others as they see fit. As long as the opinions are conveyed without insult, invective, or personal attack—then we have a viable forum. If, however, posters are unwilling to accept the ideas of others (this does not mean agree), and feel compelled to chastise others and their ideas, then they should refrain from participating.
Lastly --
THIS IS A FORUM--OF COURSE WE WILL HAVE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION!
Show Posts
The quiz hands always seem to avoid the obvious. 
