[bd71]

Had this bidding sequence recently: 2♣-2♦(waiting)-3♥-4♥-4N (RKC)-(rest irrelevant).

One of us claimed that the RKC ask was redundant as any specific aces would have been shown after 3♥. We had never discussed this and the other assumed this treatment would not be in place without affirmative agreement.

Am curious as to what others would expect...

[mtvesuvius]

I would expect it always from a forum poster. If I am playing with a beginner/student, then I would not expect them 100% to cuebid an Ace there, however the definition of 3♥ is asking for a cuebid from partner.

If the question is leading to whether 4N should be asking for Kings and not Keycards, I think it should not be unless explicitly discussed... And even then, I disagree that it should be. 3♥ in theory should show a solid suit, however being creative is allowed at times, and I think this is a case where it may be done on a semi-solid suit. Therefore 4N should still be RKC.

[mikestar13]

4NT should be RKCB. Although partner should show an ace, but he might decline to show one if for example the ace were his only values. Also less memory strain than remembering this asks for kings. I agree that 3♥ isn't necessarily a solid suit--just a suit strong enough that it doesn't need support.

[bucky]

A new suit after 3♥ is certainly cuebid. I also think 3♥ demands cuebid, so when responder bids 4♥, he denies an ace in any side suit. However, that doesn't prevent him from having a keycard in trumps, as I believe setting heart as trumps (via 3♥) is not the same as promising a solid suit with no loser. Imagine that opener has everything except ♥K and a side ace, this is a perfect way of bidding it: first set heart as trump, then follow by 4NT as RKC.

[Siegmund]

Certainly a cuebid, yes.

The question is whether it promises an ace or not. (With my regular partner, we normally cuebid "aces first," but have a specific agreement after some sequences including this one to show kings freely.)

Conceivably you might still use RKC in this auction if all you really want is a trump asking bid below 5M. But it seems mighty rare.

[Cyberyeti]

Siegmund, on 2010-October-30, 02:24, said:

Certainly a cuebid, yes.

The question is whether it promises an ace or not. (With my regular partner, we normally cuebid "aces first," but have a specific agreement after some sequences including this one to show kings freely.)

Conceivably you might still use RKC in this auction if all you really want is a trump asking bid below 5M. But it seems mighty rare.

Exactly, we'd cue A/K/1/0 over 3♥, so for us 4♠ would be RKC and 4N would be a spade cue.

The answer to this completely depends on your cue bidding style. If you cue aces first, it shouldn't be an ace ask.

[mgoetze]

Huh? I've always assumed cuebids below game are mixed unless otherwise agreed. Am I crazy?

[Zelandakh]

mgoetze, on 2010-October-30, 13:42, said:

Huh? I've always assumed cuebids below game are mixed unless otherwise agreed. Am I crazy?

I am guessing you are quite young then. When I was learning the game it was normal here to play ace first in all cue bidding auctions. Nowadays it is normal to cue bid aces and kings equally. Perhaps in another 30 years yet another cue bidding style will be in vogue. On the specific auction you can make whatever agreement you like. I believe Inquiry uses the jump as RKCB in the suit and avoids the question altogether - perhaps that will become the norm one day. In Britain it is increasingly popular to use 2C - 2D - 3H to show 5+ diamonds and 4 hearts and give up the solid suit bids completely. What to assume is standard depends very much on who you speak to, where they come from, and how old they are.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2010-October-30, 22:51, said:

I am guessing you are quite young then.

Well, I'm about twice as old as mtvesuvius. But maybe I misunderstood his answer...

[mtvesuvius]

mgoetze, on 2010-October-31, 05:56, said:

Well, I'm about twice as old as mtvesuvius. But maybe I misunderstood his answer...

In general my cuebidding style is the same as yours it sounds like. Aces and Kings both, Keycard can resolve the differences later (or more cuebidding). My post was generalizing the fact that partner could not cuebid anything, which implies that he doesn't have anything. You could take this a step further and make 4N as a queen ask if you were really feeling imaginative. But coming back to my original point that we could still be off a Keycard in trump, it should be RKC still. Perhaps in my cuebidding style, 5N should then be asking for Queens, not Kings

[Venom]

Partner took the captaincy of the hand and asked you a specific question. Answer it and don't read more into the situation than necessary. Of course, you could look for subtle messages between the lines, drive yourself nuts, and be in the market for a different partner.

It's not clear to me that some response other than supporting partner's hearts would necessarily show the ace of that suit. fwiw: imo the standard set of responses to 2♣ openers could benefit from considerable improvement.

DHL/ DON aka Double !

[Zelandakh]

mtvesuvius, on 2010-October-31, 09:09, said:

In general my cuebidding style is the same as yours it sounds like. Aces and Kings both, Keycard can resolve the differences later (or more cuebidding). My post was generalizing the fact that partner could not cuebid anything, which implies that he doesn't have anything. You could take this a step further and make 4N as a queen ask if you were really feeling imaginative. But coming back to my original point that we could still be off a Keycard in trump, it should be RKC still. Perhaps in my cuebidding style, 5N should then be asking for Queens, not Kings

Perhaps using 4NT as super-weak KCB (0, 0+Q, 1, 1+Q) with follow-ups for side-suit queens would be optimal at this point.

[pooltuna]

bd71, on 2010-October-29, 14:49, said:

Had this bidding sequence recently: 2♣-2♦(waiting)-3♥-4♥-4N (RKC)-(rest irrelevant).

One of us claimed that the RKC ask was redundant as any specific aces would have been shown after 3♥. We had never discussed this and the other assumed this treatment would not be in place without affirmative agreement.

Am curious as to what others would expect...

In this particular auction 3♥ has demanded that cue bidding start. For me that is any non trump singleton, A, or K (edit: and of course a void). Consequently 4♥ denies any of those and 4NT is arguably best used as a queen ask of some sort or possibly to show a doubleton. Alternatively if you would prefer to qbid only first round controls then 4NT should revert to a K or possibly a singleton ask.

[bucky]

Siegmund, on 2010-October-30, 02:24, said:

Certainly a cuebid, yes.

The question is whether it promises an ace or not. (With my regular partner, we normally cuebid "aces first," but have a specific agreement after some sequences including this one to show kings freely.)

Conceivably you might still use RKC in this auction if all you really want is a trump asking bid below 5M. But it seems mighty rare.

I think the cuebid should be an ace in this case. Partner has a single-suited hand with shape, a side K may not even be useful. Plus, with some K's but no aces, the responder can bid 3NT (forcing and waiting).

[Free]

I would never assume a non-heart bid by responder to show a specific Ace. It just shows a 1st or 2nd round control, so it can be an Ace, King, singleton or void.

[helene_t]

I don't think RKC makes much sense here as responder can't have a side ace here and opener almost certainly has ♥AK. But it isn't obvious at all what 4NT is, then. Maybe it asks for specific queens or something, but undiscussed 4NT is just an obsolete bid. I would count my cards and if I had 12 I would go looking for the 13th which might be an ace. If I have 13, I would just answer zero keycards.

[kenrexford]

This is an interesting theory question. However, in a real world, RKCB makes sense.

A case in point. I opened 1♣, a 1♦ overcall, and partner jumped to 2♠, which we play as showing intermediate values with 6+ hearts. After a pass, I then bid 2NT, a conventional asking bid. After a pass, partner bid 3♠, conventionally showing two of the top three honoprs in spades and a side Ace.

My hand was such that the only missing side Ace was the Ace of diamonds. I also has Kx in spades. With a trick source in clubs, 7♠ seemed obvious.

However, as a hedge, I bid 4NT. In theory, because 3♠ also denies shortness (otherwise 4NT in theory should ask for shortness), 4NT could be asking for specific Queens in the case when partner is lookig at A-KQ (and a Queen is possible) but otherwise for the cheapest doubleton. Of course, that's nonsense. What 4NT was expected to be interpreted as is RKCB, because if partner answers, then 3♠ was a mistake, forgetting the system.

So, 4NT is RKCB in a situation like this, with an undiscussed partner.

[mikeh]

It is apparent from the earlier posts that an approach that I thought was obvious and standard is neither.

The jump rebid, if not used to show a 4 card major and longer diamonds, which is a popular treatment, sets trump and DEMANDS cue-bidding.

While in normal cue bid auctions, the current approach is to cue 1st and 2nd round controls in the most space efficient manner, this is a different situation.

A cue bid is now an Ace....with no Aces but with a second round control (typically a king but it could be a stiff if you have some trump length), bid 3N. Partner can now cue bid (preferably, if he can, via 4♣) to allow you to cue your 2nd round controls.

Should you be questioning how this makes sense, let me ask you: when was the last time that responder was wanting to bid 3N to play, and opener passed? I've never seen it.

I think the standard approach for the trump-setting jump is that the suit is solid, and accordingly there is no need for 4N by opener to ever be keycard.

My take on it would be that if we were bidding away to the 4 level and opener bid 4N, he is looking for something extra.....it is forcing to 5major, but is a stall to permit responder to show some as yet un-revealed feature....what that is will depend on what's been shown/denied so far. Sort of like saying:'I'm still interested in slam, but I can't commit there yet, based on what you've told me....do you have any positive feature that you can tell me about below 5 of our major?'