[nielsfoged]

Team match and you hold: AJ764 / KT5 / K76 / QJ. All non-vulnerable, and opponents stay quiet:
1♣ - 1♥(shows 4+sp),
3♠(promises 18-19 bal, exactly 4 sp) - 4♦(serious CB, denies CB in ♣),
4NT(RKC 1430) - 5♣(1 or 4 of 5)
5♦(asks) - 5♥(CB in ♥ and either ♠Q or ekstra length in ♠)
5♠?

Bonus info: In our system all defined bids above 5♠ would deny a CB in ♥ and promise ♠Q or extra ♠ length: 5NT, 6♣, 6♦, and 6♠. Maybe that is part of the problem, and perhaps we should also define 6♥?

More generally: do you have an agreement, what it means when partner bids trump on the 5-level, after having received the only positive reply to his trumpQ-relay below 5 in trump?

/Niels

[Fluffy]

No agreement, doubt that this will ever happen.

To me this means that partner needs ♠Q and a king in a minor for slam, he knows we don't have ♣K so gotta be ♦K, and its afraid to lose ♦K +♠A.

Its hard to imagine a hand that requires ♦K for slam, maybe he has ♠Kxxx ♥A ♦QJx ♣AKxxx

[nielsfoged]

Fluffy, on 2012-November-21, 16:39, said:

Its hard to imagine a hand that requires ♦K for slam, maybe he has ♠Kxxx ♥A ♦QJx ♣AKxxx

Though 3♠ is defined as 18-19 balanced, I agree that the hand you propose is possible.
We do not show singleton aces as splinters: 1♣-1♥(=4+♠), 3♦/♥ (=4♠,singleton ♦/♥, but not the A).

/Niels

[aguahombre]

Lost me when you thought you had the extra length opposite 4-card spade support required to show the queen.

[Jinksy]

Why is 4D serious CB? If partner's limited, it seems like it would be more useful as natural.

[aguahombre]

Jinksy, on 2012-November-21, 19:51, said:

Why is 4D serious CB? If partner's limited, it seems like it would be more useful as natural.

True. This would have been a good hand to bid 3NT showing the count close for slam without anything particular to cue. We don't need serious/non-serious when opener has already shown size within one HCP and the balanced shape.

4D as a side source of tricks would be a good thing to show, but responder doesn't have that.

[gnasher]

I would play this sequence as saying that I've forgotten how we respond to the queen-enquiry. It functions as a repeat enquiry: "Bid slam if your 5♥ bid showed the queen."

Looking at ♣QJ, I'm pretty sure that I'm going to disagree with partner's 4NT bid. I can't think of any hand where it's right for him to take control.

With the actual hand, obviously we should bid again. Partner wanted to be in slam opposite AJ764 QT5 K76 QJ, so he wants to be in slam opposite this. If we think we want to be in a grand slam missing the queen of trumps, we can bid 6♦, just in case he's lost his mind and has Kxxx Ax Axx AKxx.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-21, 19:23, said:

Lost me when you thought you had the extra length opposite 4-card spade support required to show the queen.

On this hand I think it's sensible to show the queen of trumps. Our outside cards, especially ♣QJ, mean that we're likely to be solid outside the spade suit. We may well be able to play in 6NT, allowing us to delay the spade guess until we know the layout of the side suits. For example, if our Keycard-addicted partner has Kxxx AQx Qx AKxx, 6NT is a fine contract.

[Zelandakh]

Without agreement this basically does not exist. However, it is not unreasonable to agree to use 5♠ instead of 5NT to ask for a minor suit king or a useful extra. That in turn would free up 5NT to be your SSA in hearts. This kind of agreement is a good option any time there is a positive answer to the queen ask below the level of 5 in our suit.

[nielsfoged]

Jinksy, on 2012-November-21, 19:51, said:

Why is 4D serious CB? If partner's limited, it seems like it would be more useful as natural.

aguahombre, on 2012-November-21, 20:00, said:

True. This would have been a good hand to bid 3NT showing the count close for slam without anything particular to cue. We don't need serious/non-serious when opener has already shown size within one HCP and the balanced shape.

Jinksy/Aquahombre got me there (not the first time!) - you are right 4♦ is just a CB denying CB in ♣. 3NT from me (responder) would have been a proposal to play, though it may be wrong-sided.

aguahombre, on 2012-November-21, 19:23, said:

Lost me when you thought you had the extra length opposite 4-card spade support required to show the queen.

gnasher, on 2012-November-22, 01:54, said:

On this hand I think it's sensible to show the queen of trumps. Our outside cards, especially ♣QJ, mean that we're likely to be solid outside the spade suit. We may well be able to play in 6NT, allowing us to delay the spade guess until we know the layout of the side suits. For example, if our Keycard-addicted partner has Kxxx AQx Qx AKxx, 6NT is a fine contract.

At the table, I judged the trump-quality in its context with the remaining hand, as described by Gnasher. However, when partner then bid 5♠, I wondered whether he would have expected me to bid 6♠ (or anything else committing to slam) on all hands with trump Q, and also on hands with extra spade length but without a CB in ♥, whereas he would only make a NF invitation if I responded 5♥ showing CB and extra length (i.e. denying trump Q). Should that be the definition of 5♠ in these type of sequences?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-22, 02:34, said:

Without agreement this basically does not exist. However, it is not unreasonable to agree to use 5♠ instead of 5NT to ask for a minor suit king or a useful extra. That in turn would free up 5NT to be your SSA in hearts. This kind of agreement is a good option any time there is a positive answer to the queen ask below the level of 5 in our suit.

I was thinking the same thing ( about 5S! and 5NT! ) , but my problem is how can Responder show the ♠Q or extra length when he knows they only hold 9 cards w/o the Q ? I would think Responder would need 6 cards w/o the Q to make a positive reply .

[nielsfoged]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-November-22, 10:23, said:

I was thinking the same thing ( about 5S! and 5NT! ) , but my problem is how can Responder show the ♠Q or extra length when he knows they only hold 9 cards w/o the Q ? I would think Responder would need 6 cards w/o the Q to make a positive reply .

The a priori chance of solving the trump suit holding Kxxx to AJxxx is 53.2% (due to the ♠J!), and even 58% if partner holds at least K98x. If the 3 other suits are easy played for 1 looser, that makes a reasonable slam. Yes, I know IF is an if, but of the 7-8 hcp we do not hold, 1 Ace and trump Q counts for most. As mentioned by Gnasher, solving the ♠ suit may even become more likely, if we steer into 6NT, and thereby are able to postpone playing that suit.

On top of that comes if the missing Ace is actually ♠K! Partner may hold for example T9xx / AQx / Ax / AKxx (which is even just 17!). Also, partner may have bid a sophisticated 5♦ relay holding ♠Q himself! For example holding QTxx / AQJ / AJ / Axxx and simply be looking for more than a 4-card spade suit in my hand!

/Niels

[Zelandakh]

nielsfoged, on 2012-November-22, 15:25, said:

The a priori chance of solving the trump suit holding Kxxx to AJxxx is 53.2%

And when partner was looking for a grand slam...?

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-23, 02:19, said:

And when partner was looking for a grand slam...?

Partner is limited and known to be balanced, whereas the strength of our hand is unknown. Partner doesn't have the queen or jack of his first-bid suit. It is inconceivable that partner will drive a grand slam uninvited.

Look at the actual auction. Partner is the one who knows whether we have all the keycards. However, we control whether partner is allowed to bid a grand slam - if we bid 6♠ or 6NT he will pass; if we bid 6♦ that invites him to bid a grand slam, provided that we have all the keycards.

Having said that, I would be very happy to reach 7♠ having shown the queen of trumps, if the rest of the hand is solid. Much of the time the opponents will lead a trump; if they don't, I'll play the opening leader for the queen.

[Fluffy]

nielsfoged, on 2012-November-21, 16:49, said:

Though 3♠ is defined as 18-19 balanced, I agree that the hand you propose is possible.
We do not show singleton aces as splinters: 1♣-1♥(=4+♠), 3♦/♥ (=4♠,singleton ♦/♥, but not the A).

That's what I though, also possible is ♠Kxxx ♥AQ ♦QJx ♣AK10x where ♥K is not very important, even if partner doesn't have it, it can be finesed or discarded on diamonds.

[ArtK78]

Perhaps this is a simplistic way of handling this situation, but if a player bids RKCB and makes any non-signoff call next, to me that is forcing to slam.

[nielsfoged]

ArtK78, on 2012-November-23, 11:55, said:

Perhaps this is a simplistic way of handling this situation, but if a player bids RKCB and makes any non-signoff call next, to me that is forcing to slam.

Sorry, but I do not understand this comment! Here the player bids RKCB and follows up by asking for trump Q, which is a non-signoff call. However that call could either be an attempt to reach/invite grandslam holding all keycards, or an attempt to avoid slam if lacking one keycard and trump Q. If you accept that, the judging of whether the player who bid RKCB now means 5♠ to be non-signoff or signoff is exactly the question that started this discussion, and not its answer.

/Niels

[ArtK78]

nielsfoged, on 2012-November-23, 13:32, said:

Sorry, but I do not understand this comment! Here the player bids RKCB and follows up by asking for trump Q, which is a non-signoff call. However that call could either be an attempt to reach/invite grandslam holding all keycards, or an attempt to avoid slam if lacking one keycard and trump Q. If you accept that, the judging of whether the player who bid RKCB now means 5♠ to be non-signoff or signoff is exactly the question that started this discussion, and not its answer.

/Niels

As a matter of proper bidding technique, when bidding RKCB you should be prepared to bid a slam if the response indicates that no more than one key card is missing. You should not enter into RKCB if you don't want to be in a slam missing a key card AND the trump queen. Therefore, the second ask should be a grand slam try (and therefore slam forcing).

I know that others disagree with this. That is fine if that is your agreement. It is not the way I want to play RKCB.

[fromageGB]

deleted

[Zelandakh]

nielsfoged, on 2012-November-23, 13:32, said:

Sorry, but I do not understand this comment!

I think it was pretty clear what Art meant. Bidding RKCB says we have enough for slam unless we are missing 2 of the 6 base cards (trump AKQ, 3 side aces). If the trump queen is asked for and a positive answer given, that means we have enough for slam. In that context making 5♠ the king ask is simply common sense. The situation is different if we get a negative answer to a queen ask. Now a further positive move can be interpreted as an ask for extra trump length.