[pclayton]

1♥ - 1♠
3♦ - 4♣
4♦ - 4N

4N is.....?

[Echognome]

Analog to my answer before, but this one is a bit weirder in that we had an unambiguous chance to keycard before, but now after making our strong raise we want to keycard now? I think at the table I would assume keycard, but I really think it should be an offer to play.

[gnasher]

Keycard for diamonds. 1♥-1♠; 3♦-4NT is natural.

[Echognome]

gnasher, on Aug 22 2008, 08:47 AM, said:

Keycard for diamonds. 1♥-1♠; 3♦-4NT is natural.

Now that I rethink my post, I agree entirely. 4NT over 3♦ would have to be the quant raise. Good call Andy.

[nige1]

pclayton, on Aug 22 2008, 11:37 AM, said:

1♥ - 1♠
3♦ - 4♣
4♦ - 4N

4N is.....?

I think it is RKCB too. THe problem with this kind of auction is that it is hard to cue-bid at the four level because there is the distinclt possibility that partner may take suit bids as delayed preference.

[jdonn]

Echognome, on Aug 22 2008, 11:41 AM, said:

Analog to my answer before, but this one is a bit weirder in that we had an unambiguous chance to keycard before, but now after making our strong raise we want to keycard now? I think at the table I would assume keycard, but I really think it should be an offer to play.

If 4♣ agrees diamonds, and if responder wants to bid keycard but can't directly over 3♦, then it makes sense for him to always bid 4♣ first instead of 4♦, to reduce the risk of opener preempting blackwood before responder gets a chance to bid it.

[skjaeran]

4NT over 3♦ would definitley be quantitative for me.

After 3NT - 4♦, I'd prefer 4♠ to be KC for diamonds and 4NT natural. I haven't discussed this with any partner, and would take 4NT as KC undiscussed.

[kenrexford]

Ideally, 4NT answers 4♦ (4♦ being RKCB for diamonds) by showing two without the Queen. I'm not sure why we would want Opener, with the strnger hand, answering rather than asking.

I agree with shaeran that, if Responder does not just answer (which I still think is better), that 4♠ should probably be RKCB for diamonds, to allow flexibility (Responder either asks -- 4♠ -- or asks Opener to ask -- 4♥).

If 4♠ would ask, and if 4♥ would ask Opener to ask, then 4NT is just a cue, kind of last-train. It probably denies a club control (I'd expect 5♣ to show the missing club control).

For me, unfortunately, 4♥ would be RKCB by Responder (cheapest out-of-focus major), and bids above 4♥ cues.

[pclayton]

Continuing from the other thread, I think 4♦ clarifies Opener's hand type. Therefore, 4N is definitely key card (especially since 4N would be natural on the round before).

[skjaeran]

pclayton, on Aug 23 2008, 07:25 PM, said:

Continuing from the other thread, I think 4♦ clarifies Opener's hand type. Therefore, 4N is definitely key card (especially since 4N would be natural on the round before).

Well, I'd prefer to be able to stop in 4NT even after partner clarified his hand, especially at MP. To keep things 'simple' I'd not have different meanings for these bids with different types of scoring (eventhough I DID have different meanings 20 years back playing a modified Culbertson 4-5NT convention).

[FrancesHinden]

If I don't have detailed agreements with partner on this type of sequence, then it's keycard for diamonds, because a jump to 4NT over 3D (without 4C first) would have been natural.

In my two regular partnerships, it is
- "rolling" (encouraging but with nothing to cue bid i.e. effectively a trump cuebid) in one of them, and
- "discouraging" (also nothing suitable to cue bid, and a a weaker call than 5D) in the other

[obscure historical system development history has led to us having the meanings of 4NT/5D swapped in the two partnerships]

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 24 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

In my two regular partnerships, it is
- "rolling" (encouraging but with nothing to cue bid i.e. effectively a trump cuebid) in one of them, and
- "discouraging" (also nothing suitable to cue bid, and a a weaker call than 5D) in the other

Wasn't it one of these partnerships that bid a two-ace slam last weekend?

[mr1303]

This sounds like one of those bids I wouldn't make since I wouldn't be sure what it would be, and equally I wouldn't know what to do with the answer.

Theoretically I like it to be encouraging for diamonds but not as strong as an out-and-out cue-bid (and so therefore more encouraging than 5D).

However I've never had a partnership agreement on something like this.

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on Aug 25 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Aug 24 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

In my two regular partnerships, it is
- "rolling" (encouraging but with nothing to cue bid i.e. effectively a trump cuebid) in one of them, and
- "discouraging" (also nothing suitable to cue bid, and a a weaker call than 5D) in the other

Wasn't it one of these partnerships that bid a two-ace slam last weekend?

It was indeed.
But that wasn't through inability to ask for aces. I knew we would have 12 tricks even if we were missing two aces and therefore it might make anyway.

And didn't your team also bid a slam on the same cards, the only difference being that against us the aces were cashed at tricks one and two, and against you the slam made?

[paulg]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 25 2008, 11:09 AM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 25 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Aug 24 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

In my two regular partnerships, it is
- "rolling" (encouraging but with nothing to cue bid i.e. effectively a trump cuebid) in one of them, and
- "discouraging" (also nothing suitable to cue bid, and a a weaker call than 5D) in the other

Wasn't it one of these partnerships that bid a two-ace slam last weekend?

It was indeed.
But that wasn't through inability to ask for aces. I knew we would have 12 tricks even if we were missing two aces and therefore it might make anyway.

And didn't your team also bid a slam on the same cards, the only difference being that against us the aces were cashed at tricks one and two, and against you the slam made?

Just to say that we didn't bid the two-ace slam, and our team mates took their tricks when the opposition did.

Naturally we finished below Frances and gnasher!

Paul

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 25 2008, 12:09 PM, said:

And didn't your team also bid a slam on the same cards, the only difference being that against us the aces were cashed at tricks one and two, and against you the slam made?

Yes, but that was because we didn't know what we were doing.

[P_Marlowe]

The main question is, what was 4C?
For me it is a cue, agreeing diamonds, and from that followes
the meaning of 4NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Reading through the responses, I am not
sure 4NT the round before would be nat., but than
partner could always bid 4D, before making the
ace asking bid, ... hence it has to be natural, well
... hopefully nobody tries this out, if I am sitting
across.