Author Topic: Limiting the choices and providing a rationale...  (Read 5265 times)

ggriffin0

  • Guest
Limiting the choices and providing a rationale...
« on: June 10, 2018, 05:36:05 PM »
There are a lot of things going on here...feel free to pickup where you take off.

Your Hand

!S AQ
!H K75
!D AQJ107
!C Q53

White vs Red and in 1st seat your partner opens:

1 !C - (2 !S) - ?

Your thoughts about the hand?

What are you not picking and why?

What bid would you select?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2018, 05:39:11 PM by ggriffin0 »

Masse24

  • IACAdmins
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +13/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting the choices and providing a rationale...
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2018, 08:29:48 PM »
Not picking double, which in this auction would pretty much (although not always) guarantee four !H. I don't seem to have four !H , so what else is there? I would double with fewer than four !H if no other bid makes sense.

But here . . . I have a suit. Let's bid it. 3 !D it is. Why? Because it's forcing. How forcing? Some will say it is a one-round force. But I believe it is expert standard to consider a new suit at the 3-level by responder to be a game-force. I subscribe to this thinking (it simplifies things), but would want to confirm it with partner before making that assumption.

Regardless of partner's rebid, my next bid will likely be a cuebid, which in the context of this auction should show a very, very big hand.

We are almost certainly headed for slam, but which one?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2018, 09:37:36 PM by Masse24 »
“Kindness is the only service that will stand the storm of life and not wash out. It will wear well and will be remembered long after the prism of politeness or the complexion of courtesy has faded away.” Abraham Lincoln

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting the choices and providing a rationale...
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2018, 07:48:50 PM »
What am I thinking?
I have an 18 count, partner opened the bidding, RHO made a vulnerable 2 !S bid. So I am thinking that the 22 unseen high cards are divided in some way between partner and Rho, with Lho holding zip. That's my thought. I suppose that Rho might hold an 8 count, say the !S KJ and the !H A. That's a pretty frisky 2 !S when red against white but could be. Then maybe pard has a 12 count, making room for Lho to have a J or a Q.  Could be.

Now how about slam? If Rho holds the !H A and the !C K, I doubt any slam makes. We would be able to take 2 spades, probably 3 hearts, 5 diamonds and 1 club. That's 11. Can Rho have that? Surely he has the !S K and I would hope he has the !S J. The !H A and the !C K would give him 11, and thus give partner 11. It's possible. Pessimistic but possible.

If Rho has the !H A and the !D K along with the !S KJ then my main problem will be to get to the board enough to take all of the needed finesses, but probably it would work.

But I think a 10 count on my right, a 12 count with partner seems more likely. Maybe !S KJ, !H Q,  !D K, !C J.   That would give me 12 tricks if I get to board enough for the finesses.

Possibly I should try 4NT, hoping it is rkc for clubs. If partner has two keys I bid 6NT, if he has one key I bid 5 !S hoping he takes that as a request to bid 5NT which I then pass, hoping it makes. That's a lot of hoping.

If I don't try that then I imagine I just bid 3 !D and, if pard bids 3 !H I probably just bid 6NT.

It's a good hand, it got better, sort of, with the 2 !S on my right, so slam seems likely but not certain. The reason for "sort of" is that it makes my !S K a winner but it gives me concern over where the !C K is.  Since Rho is red against white it seems likely that he has some stuff to go with that mangy !S holding.
Ken

ggriffin0

  • Guest
Re: Limiting the choices and providing a rationale...
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2018, 01:57:54 AM »
In a few side conversations, 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. 3 !D is certainly an option as pointed out earlier.

Options that aren't options:
2N
3 !S
3N

With that out of the way, let's talk about that pesky 4N bid. I really like it and would bid the hand this way BUT I would ascribe a different meaning than RKC. First and foremost it calls out the 2 !S bid as garbage. Secondly, I am a bit concerned about my partner's opener especially with an LTC opener which IF distributional can be weaker in hcp. If this is the case, then I would assume partner has a two suiter of some dimension. Great that takes care of the suit problem but doesn't promise that slam is "on." In the latter sense, we have the values and two !S stops but no suit which makes the question of relative strength an important one. In other words, RKC is a wrecking ball that is foremost too unilateral for this application, at best you sign off at 5 !C or 5N depending on your agreements and # of keys (1430/0314). On the other hand should slam not be there 4N even or +1 is vastly superior to 5 !C and keeps the auction out of demilitarized zone.

I think we would all play 4N in an uncontested auction as RKC, but here AND calling opponents bluff of 2 !S with 4N, perhaps 4N would be better served as quantitative. Partner shows those values or doesn't. "Yes I have the opener and then some." If you do this you get a response of 6 !C.

Oohh! Now we just need to determine what that is. 6 !C unequivocably says "I have those values and my suit!" Well that is all we need to hear. We could safely raise to the grand after this or sign off 6N. But given that  6 !C response surely we should be emboldened to bid the grand. In either case, we got at least to the slam.

Lastly, Turbo, minorwood AND crosswood (I favor the latter) are all viable applications for rkc here that keep the auction going but start a level below which in my opinion removes the wrecking ball as the hand can tolerate any answer. Sadly enough, this would require choosing !C as trump but with the intent to run to NT permissible.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2018, 11:53:22 AM by ggriffin0 »

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting the choices and providing a rationale...
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2018, 12:22:04 PM »
Let's give partner an everyday hand. People get everyday hands everyday.

!S xx
!H AJx
!D Kxx
!C Axxx


!S AQ
!H K75
!D AQJ107
!C Q53

The N hand is minimal but I would open it 1 !C and I think most others would also. Although it is minimal. it does have the !D K so we have 5 certain diamond tricks.  What are our chances in 6NT played by S, and do they get better after the weak jump overcall of 2 !S? For the moment, let's assume that indeed there has been a 2 !S overcall by our vulnerable Rho, assume we are in 6NT,  and assume an opening spade lead. We have 2+2+5+1=10 tricks on top. We have to assume the !C K is on our right if we are to bring this to 12 tricks. So:
Win the spade, go to the board in diamonds, lead a small club toward the Q. If Rho has Kx he probably hops up, and maybe he hops up even with Kxx. So assume he hops up and returns a spade.

We are assured now of 11 tricks with a decent chance for 12. If clubs are 3-3 (dream on) we have 12 tricks ready to go. If Lho has 4 clubs then we still have the heart finesse plus a little. We begin by playing off our top clubs, claiming if they split, If not we run diamonds, all of them.

After 9 tricks the position is as below, and W still has a club.

!S
!H AJx
!D
!C x


!S
!H K75
!D 7
!C
We cash the last diamond, W must hold his club, we toss the club from the board. Now we have
!S
!H AJx
!D
!C


!S
!H K75
!D
!C

W has a club and 2 hearts so there is no need to take a finesse. If W started with the !H Q it will fall on the second !H. We play !H K and a small !H and of we see only spots then we play the A and hope E was dealt Qx. Could be. That's the extra chance beyond a working heart finesse. One of those hands where if the finesse is working then there is no need to take it.

So: With a N hand such as this, do we want to be in 6NT? Seems like a stretch to me. But of course partner could have a better hand.

Can we find out more about partner's hand? I dunno. Do we have a better play for 6 !D than for 6NT? Maybe. But not much.
Anyway, after 2 !S I think I start with 3 !D.


The possibility of an uncontested auction was mentioned. How would it go? Depends on who I am playing with. If I am playing with the bots, it begins 1 !C - 2 !D (a Soloway jump shift). I plan to next bid NT, showing a strong hand, a diamond suit, and fairly balanced outside my diamond suit. So, with the hand above, 1 !C -2 !D - 2 !H -2NT - 3NT - Pass. (The 2 !H bid does not require four cards. Part of Soloway Jump Shifts is that after 1 !C - 2 !D we will always play in clubs, diamonds or NT). That auction seems like a perfect description of what I have, partner then decides where we belong. BWS also plays 2 !D in this way, so while maybe the treatment is not common, it is also not rare. But suppose we are not playing strong jump shifts. Then the auction begins 1 !C - 1 !D. If partner bids 1NT I raise to 4 NT. That should send about the same message. With a 12 count he can pass, with a 14 could he can raise to 6, with a 13 count he can think about it.

Partner will not always be dealt a balanced 12-14 point hand. Often he will, so I bid assuming that he does until I hear differently.
Ken

ggriffin0

  • Guest
Re: Limiting the choices and providing a rationale...
« Reply #5 on: June 20, 2018, 01:56:06 PM »
I think we are missing a few points. Regardless of the hand and we could come up with any number of examples, allow me to clarify a few things mis-informed in Ken's post. 4N in an uncontested auction would be RKC, whether we would use this or not, is not the point. The point was to exemplify what it meant and why 4N as RKC in a contested auction is NOT optimal over a minor of unknown length. Using soloway or another gadget in an auction that doesn't exist does not help us with 4N.

So getting back on track. With the RKC as uncontested and that the treatment should change because it is a unilateral wrecking ball is the point here. We DO need to know if partner has a suit and has extras and only they can tell us this. So it comes down to whether the continuation bid is 3 !D or 4N (quantitative). Either is fair, and if turbo, minorwood, or crosswood are in your bidding arsenals, and are adapted to competitive auctions then it makes even more sense that 4N is not RKC as that would be a duplication. In which case it comes down to the information you need, in this case it isn't simply about controls but these conventions with another hand would give us a viable alternative.

4N as quantitative optimally places the ask, and can withstand all continuations IF opener has another bid (answer). Yes, PASS is also ok. I won't say anything more on the topic and for what it is worth...

7 !C is a laydown, as is 6 !C and 6N. 10 tables found it, AND 4 found the grand. Sadly enough only a few of the auctions had to deal with 2 !S .

To Recap

1) 4N is clear as a day, gets us to the grand and IF we are timid we still find 6 !C or 6N as the hands bridge together.

2) Todd also reminds us that 3 !D is GF and through a series of continuations we would also likely arrive at the same place.

*depends how many continuations you want to deal with and your level of comfortability with partner and the methods agreed in place.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2018, 01:59:54 PM by ggriffin0 »

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting the choices and providing a rationale...
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2018, 02:54:29 PM »
On this post I will stick with the auction as it was, so 1 !C - 2 !S.
My suggested bid of 3 !D was a natural game forcing call awaiting developments. As far as I knew at the time, partner might be balanced and we might belong in diamonds.

I have now looked up the actual hand.
Not balanced, to put it mildly. Let's see how it would or might go after 3 !D.

I bid 3 !D then surely 4 !C by opener.

Ok, I fit clubs, I have the !S Ace, I bid 4 !S.

Opener is glad to hear about the spade control and, with her eight clubs to the AKT and the heart A, she is sure she wants to play in at least 6 !C and maybe in 7.

So she bids 5 !H.

5 !H commits us to at least 6 !C so there is little purpose in bidding 5 !H except as an invitation to 7 !C
I accept, 7 !C.

Alternatively, after my encouraging 4 !S she might decide to just trust that I also have the !D A and bid 7 !C. But I think 5 !H is more likely.

Would the bidding go that way over 3 !D ? We will never know. A brief look at the other tables suggests that each table had its own auction.
I am reasonably certain I would have bid 3 !D over 2 !S at the table. What would happen next? We can only speculate. I have a bunch of hands, for example some of the Bridge World quiz hands,  that I plan to someday give to the bots, maybe I will include this.

Of course there are 16 top tricks in NT, but I think  bidding 7 !C is enough over 5 !H. I don't know about her !D K and 7 !C may give more options if she doesn't have it. For example if her shape is 3=3=0=7 or 3=2=1=7 she has 2+2+1+7 =12 top tricks  (trusting as surely we can that the !S K is on my right).   She can hopefully the ruff third round of spades for her 13th trick.  If spades are 2-1 this is easy,  draw trump and claim. If W holds Jxx it is still possible as long as spades are 6-2. Ruff the third round high and lead a small trump from the board. So I think 7 !C is the right spot is the better bet unless we can see that !D K in her hand.


So I would have bid 3 !D and I think that on this hand we might well then get to 7 !C. But it's a hand with options.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2018, 03:00:20 PM by kenberg »
Ken

Masse24

  • IACAdmins
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +13/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting the choices and providing a rationale...
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2018, 05:39:39 PM »
Options that aren’t options?
 
I agree that both 2NT, 3NT, and 3 !S are unacceptable, presumably for obvious reasons, though I will explain anyway. The reason for my explanations (especially 3 !S) will become evident. To begin with, neither 2NT nor 3NT is forcing. Therefore, 2NT risks languishing in a part-score, and 3NT (which is where you would rest unless partner had a monster), does not do justice to the strength of the hand, quite possibly missing slam. Both are easy to dismiss.

What about 3 !S? If I had a powerful hand with !C support (long !C), this is how I would respond. Responding 3 !S would presumably also deny four !H, since with that hand I would likely—but not always--begin with a negative double. So, the basic principle that applies is this: if a suit can be agreed to below the keycard ask, either by way of a forcing auction, or in the case of interference by the opponents via a cuebid, then a subsequent 4NT is RKC. If the “suit agreement” path is possible but skipped, then 4NT is not RKC. I believe this to be a common expert understanding.

That thinking then precludes the use of the immediate 4NT response over 2 !S as RKC for the simple reason that trump can be agreed with a cuebid.

That same principle can be applied to auctions without interference. For example: 1 !S – 4NT. Is it RKC? Not for me it’s not. Why? Because trump can be agreed in many ways, either through a game-force response such a Jacoby 2NT, or a splinter, or a 2/1 response followed by suit agreement. This then frees up 4NT for something else. The current expert standard treatment of a direct 4NT response (skipping possible suit agreement) is Blackwood. Plain vanilla Blackwood. Aces only. (Yes--really!)

This is a rare bird, used primarily with a long, solid, independent suit where all five “key cards” would not provide the desired information. Picture, for example, this hand opposite a 1 !S open: !S x !H AKQJTxxx !D Kx !C AK. Good luck with setting !H as trump. Likewise, good luck with an immediate 4NT being RKC. Do we really want to hear about partner’s !S K? Maybe if he responds with three keys. But what if it’s two?
Now, would I expect that understanding from a pickup? Not likely—unless of course it were a person I trusted to know this. More likely would be that 4NT is, more often than I would care for it to be, “BBO Blackwood.”

Additionally, there are other agreements which can be used for a minor-suit key-card ask and suit agreement. That gets into a completely different set of agreements about minor suit slam exploration, probably best saved for a separate thread.

But here, with the hand in front of us--getting back to the choices of possible responses over the 2 !S interference--I simply cannot imagine anything other than 3 !D. The statement that “4NT is clear as day” is, in my opinion, a bit of an overbid. It would not occur to me.
“Kindness is the only service that will stand the storm of life and not wash out. It will wear well and will be remembered long after the prism of politeness or the complexion of courtesy has faded away.” Abraham Lincoln

Curls77

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 387
  • Karma: +8/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting the choices and providing a rationale...
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2018, 09:34:45 PM »
If yall dont try replicate Tolstoy and write another War and Peace it would be easier watch over posts. Pls do not refrase all you said *after* u've seen actual hand. Such discussion leads to nowhere.

ggriffin0

  • Guest
Re: Limiting the choices and providing a rationale...
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2018, 12:44:23 PM »
I really don’t like spending my time this way, but let’s clear some misconceptions.

“So, the basic principle that applies is this: if a suit can be agreed to below the keycard ask, either by way of a forcing auction, or in the case of interference by the opponents via a cuebid, then a subsequent 4NT is RKC.”

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.

“ ‘If the “suit agreement” path is possible but skipped, then 4NT is not RKC.’ I believe this to be a common expert understanding.”

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.

“That thinking then precludes the use of the immediate 4NT response over 2  as RKC for the simple reason that trump can be agreed with a cuebid.”

Uncontested yes, Contested no, and still need 4N for controls regardless of the pathway to 4N.

“That same principle can be applied to auctions without interference. For example: 1 !S – 4NT. Is it RKC? Not for me it’s not. Why?”

1 !S - 4N is very different than 1 !C -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.

“Because trump can be agreed in many ways, either through a game-force response such a Jacoby 2NT, or a splinter, or a 2/1 response followed by suit agreement. This then frees up 4NT for something else.”

We will come back to this later.

“The current expert standard treatment of a direct 4NT response (skipping possible suit agreement) is Blackwood.”

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)

“This is a rare bird, used primarily with a long, solid, independent suit where all five “key cards” would not provide the desired information. Picture, for example, this hand opposite a 1  open: insert 1 !C , x  AKQJTxxx  Kx  AK. Good luck with setting  as trump. Likewise, good luck with an immediate 4NT being RKC. Do we really want to hear about partner’s  K? Maybe if he responds with three keys. But what if it’s two?”
 
An interesting conundrum. 5 vs 4 (RKC vs BW). If we have all keys not an issue either way. If we don’t and are relying on an outside suit then we need to know about the K and know that 7 is “off” one. Seems to be a moot issue. On one layout we need the K, on the other layout (see above) we have to know the Ace. If it is quant, we just need to know relative strength and maybe we get a suit as well. In which case we get the answer to everything we need IF we belong there. 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. Neither of the categories helped place the outside K until the six level. So no method is not without it’s flaws. On a side note, have we ever used BW or RKC to get to another suit? Again we have to account for all the possibilities. The answer here should be “yes, but it is a little unorthodox.”

“Now, would I expect that understanding from a pickup? Not likely—unless of course it were a person I trusted to know this. More likely would be that 4NT is, more often than I would care for it to be, ‘BBO Blackwood.’”

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.

“Additionally, there are other agreements which can be used for a minor-suit key-card ask and suit agreement. That gets into a completely different set of agreements about minor suit slam exploration, probably best saved for a separate thread.”

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.”

“But here, with the hand in front of us--getting back to the choices of possible responses over the 2  interference--I simply cannot imagine anything other than 3  .” The statement that “4NT is clear as day” is, in my opinion, a bit of an overbid. It would not occur to me.”

Probably best to stay away from judgments and unilateral ideas in a forum post. Perhaps even some sarcasm too I dunno.
Besides, IF the opponents became cagey with 4 spades over 3 diamonds, we are back to 4N with more ambiguity. 4N surely suggests slam intent and is impervious to interference as it skips those levels. BUT ok. 5 spades by opponents surely poses a choice.


This exercise tells me that we NEED some forum rules here.
1)   First and foremost, I admonish our members not to be categorically anchored in right or wrong dichotomy. There are choices in bridge which is what makes the game so rich and vibrant. To suggest otherwise detracts from the evolution of ideas.
2)   Secondly, it is prudent to keep judgments and categorizations away from forum posts
3)   When in doubt about something or don’t understand about whether something should be posted or if something is offensive, ask.
4)   We want to ensure mutual respect and a clean forum environment where everyone feels they can participate. (I have received quite a few comments from members indicating not everyone feels the forum is as open as it could be and for this reason they abstain). We want to right this ship.
5)   Looking at the actual hand does NOT help us as we would have had to make a decision before the play and we are likely to be dummy anyways. Suppose we could result but there is no merit in this.

« Last Edit: June 22, 2018, 12:50:03 PM by ggriffin0 »

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting the choices and providing a rationale...
« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2018, 02:06:33 PM »

If rules are put in place I will try to follow them. I hope that doesn't happen. I'll explain.

I participate in various forums. As it happens, I posted on the BBO IAC forum yesterday:
http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/78978-improvements-please/
This particular post got 2 "likes" but no doubt others think that it is totally wrong.  That's fine.
I post my thoughts on the Interesting Bridge Hands, on the General Bridge Discussion, on the GIB Robot Discussion, and other places.
The Water Cooler has various topics, often political, and I post there.
Of course people disagree with me, sometimes very much so, but so far nobody has suggested that we need to put in some rules to keep me in line. I have not been kicked off any thread, I have not been reprimanded. Not before now anyway.

So it all seems to be working.

On the Water Cooler, some posters refer to other posters as trolls and sometimes worse. I have never done that. I find some of the posts bizarre, but I cope with that.

So if the moderator decides that rules are needed to keep me in line then so be it, but I am hoping this doesn't happen.

I plan to, from time to time, keep posting my thoughts until I am told to stop. Maybe that is about to happen.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2018, 11:51:44 AM by kenberg »
Ken

ggriffin0

  • Guest
Re: Limiting the choices and providing a rationale...
« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2018, 02:51:52 PM »
Perhaps rules was a bit strenuous but certainly guidelines is appropriate and I would bet this discussion gets moved to another thread here shortly.

As to forum trolls well that is a self-correcting problem in IAC, rather than having to avoid them they just wouldn’t exist here.

This wasn’t to single anyone out it was to bring attention to the environment we are trying to foster and to be sentient or conscious about the manner in which we bring ideas up. I think the main problem is in the approach we use. We want to encourage discussion and dialogue. Whatever the source of the idea, self, book/article, something seen on BBO/IRL, or even a majority position, it is often best to state it as an idea, not a be all and end all, then we can think about things openly and objectively. Then the conversation evolves naturally, a set of reactions, how does that work, so we like it, what other options exist. Perhaps this is stemming from my deep background in methodology, particularly the qualitative and pedagogical side. For me, there is no dialogue in a prescriptive response. That is one sided, telling which often doesn’t lead to much thought besides an if and then set of mechanisms, even then it is rarely explained (opportunity for discussion). I do admit we all won’t always agree, but to be fair, it isn’t black and white either. Those things that are in this category should be in the lessons section in my opinion.

Masse24

  • IACAdmins
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 748
  • Karma: +13/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting the choices and providing a rationale...
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2018, 03:13:14 AM »
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 !S - 4N is very different than 1 !C -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 !C 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 !C – 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 !D – 4 !D is not Minorwood. It is merely preemptive.” To create a Minorwood auction you first go through an invitational or better sequence (such as 1 !D – 2 !D).

“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 !S – 4 !D ) to be understood, and the 4 !D 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 !S – 2 !H – 2 !S – 4NT. Is it RKC?

Using your formula, it’s RKC for !S , 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 !H response created a game-force and, importantly, you have an easy way to agree trump by bidding 3 !S. 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 !S 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 !C 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 !D 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!
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 01:34:36 AM by Masse24 »
“Kindness is the only service that will stand the storm of life and not wash out. It will wear well and will be remembered long after the prism of politeness or the complexion of courtesy has faded away.” Abraham Lincoln

ggriffin0

  • Guest
Re: Limiting the choices and providing a rationale...
« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2018, 12:51:54 PM »
I am very sorry you took this personally. Yelling at the end of your post in all capitals, including sarcasm and judgement and presenting a single opinion when an alternate set of premises can lead to other conclusions is not permissible here. I personally find that approach to be offensive and disrespectful. If you would like to speak further I can be reached via phone, e-mail or bbo.

My point was that two options exist and what they were was murky however there are two premises leading to two different conclusions, not a single set of constructed postulates leading in one direction.
As to your point about my admonishing. Neither did I violate any, I professionally broke down your post to show the result was not as unilateral as it would suggest. That all points are equally valid depending on the premise and that there are multiple premises operating against each other.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2018, 01:25:10 PM by ggriffin0 »

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting the choices and providing a rationale...
« Reply #14 on: June 24, 2018, 12:29:57 PM »
Getting back to the original question. I re-read my first post and I pretty much am sticking with it. The topic asks for my choices and my rationale. I replied that I considered 4NT but whatever the meaning should be it is far from clear partner and I would think the same. Toward the end I decided on 3D.

I think 3D is a good call regardless of what 4NT does or doesn't mean, but it has the additional advantage that partner will have no trouble understanding that this means I have a good hand with diamonds.  On this particular hand, where partner has eight clubs, I think it will land us in 7C.  As I mentioned in that first post, I figured partner might bid 3H over 3D and I said I would then bid 6NT.  Of course partner might also bid 4D over 3D, in which case 6D sounds right. Generally I was expecting the issue to be "Do we or don't we belong in slam?". The idea that partner might have eight running club tricks along with the !D K to solidify my suit and the !H A to control that suit was not on my radar. 

I supplied my various thoughts rather than just saying "I bid 3 !D" because I thought that was what the original formulation of the problem asked for.


I'll spend a moment on some of the controversy. When, after considering and rejecting 4NT, I say, as I did, "If I don't try that then I imagine I just bid 3 !D and, if pard bids 3 !H I probably just bid 6NT" I am simply saying what I would do.  I didn't list everything I would do after 3D, there are too many possibilities. In the case at hand, partner would bid 4 !C and surely I would then bid 4 !S. This is not resulting it's rather a matter of "what else?". I have shown diamonds, partner bids 4 !C, I have club support and a good hand, of course I bid 4 !S.

That's probably about all I can say here that might be useful.

Ken