[Fluffy]

♠AKQ10x
♥x
♦xxx
♣KQxx


1♥-1♠
2♣-2♦
3♣

Playing minorwood, 4♣ asks for keycards, is there any way to investigate diamond shortness/control?

[rhm]

Assume you can find out about diamond shortness/control (say 4♣ would not have been minorwood but forcing).
How will you find out whether enough first round controls are on board below 5♣?

There are 2 options besides minorwood.

a) Bid 3♠ now. If partner raises he should be short in diamonds, If partner bids 3NT or 4♦ he is likely to have a control in diamond.
b) Bid 5♣- a reasonable description about your hand - and leave the rest to partner.


Rainer Herrmann

[MinorKid]

How about:

1♥ 1♠
2♣ 4♣

?

IMO Since 2♣ does not make a game-force situation, 4♣ can be natural.

[Fluffy]

MinorKid, on 2014-March-05, 06:22, said:

How about:

1♥ 1♠
2♣ 4♣

?

IMO Since 2♣ does not make a game-force situation, 4♣ can be natural.

Assuming I had an agreement in place which I don't this gives up on spade fit and 3NT which is a bad idea in general, even worse at MPs.

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2014-March-05, 06:21, said:

There are 2 options besides minorwood.

a) Bid 3♠ now. If partner raises he should be short in diamonds, If partner bids 3NT or 4♦ he is likely to have a control in diamond.

That sounds like an attempt to get to 6♣ opposite J AQxxx xx AJxxx.

Quote

b) Bid 5♣- a reasonable description about your hand - and leave the rest to partner.

And that an attempt to miss slam opposite Jx AQxxx x AJxxx.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2014-March-05, 07:29, said:

That sounds like an attempt to get to 6♣ opposite J AQxxx xx AJxxx.

I never claimed I can bid all good slams and at the same time avoid all bad ones.

Do you?

Quote

And that an attempt to miss slam opposite Jx AQxxx x AJxxx.

Close.
A good partner might raise with a singleton diamond and 2 aces. The hand is not minimum.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2014-March-05, 06:21, said:

Assume you can find out about diamond shortness/control (say 4♣ would not have been minorwood but forcing).
How will you find out whether enough first round controls are on board below 5♣?

Is this why people play Turbo? For example
...-4♣;4♦-4♥;4NT = 0/2 keycards without spade control
...-4♣;4♦-4♥;5♣ = 1 keycard without spade control

Another possibility is to play 4♠ as Keycard. That is high enough to allow an exchange of cue-bids before Keycard, and a Keycard bidder can usually cope with a two-keycard response.

I know that some very good players play Minorwood, but I think this is a pretty good example of its shortcomings.

[Zelandakh]

Fluffy, on 2014-March-05, 06:04, said:

Playing minorwood, 4♣ asks for keycards

Does it? It rather depends on which version you are using. The mainstream idea of Minorwood as I understood it was that it is never used for the suit agreement, only for a subsequent 4m bid after suit agreement, usually at the 3 level. Thus 4♣ here would not be Minorwood. If you want to combine cues or shortage asks with RKCB here then play 4♣ as whichever ask you think best for auctions of this type and 4♦ as the key card ask. That makes everything work more smoothly.

[wanoff]

Zelandakh, on 2014-March-05, 08:33, said:

Does it? It rather depends on which version you are using. The mainstream idea of Minorwood as I understood it was that it is never used for the suit agreement, only for a subsequent 4m bid after suit agreement, usually at the 3 level. Thus 4♣ here would not be Minorwood. If you want to combine cues or shortage asks with RKCB here then play 4♣ as whichever ask you think best for auctions of this type and 4♦ as the key card ask. That makes everything work more smoothly.

I'm not familiar with Minorwood, but Zelandakhs take makes a lot of sense.
On powerhouses where you want to set up Minorwood why not use 3♦ to do that, either as Minorwood itself or as preparation for 4♣ Minorwood.
ie 1♥-1♠-2♣-3♦

[aguahombre]

Fluffy, on 2014-March-05, 06:04, said:

♠AKQ10x
♥x
♦xxx
♣KQxx


1♥-1♠
2♣-2♦
3♣

Playing minorwood, 4♣ asks for keycards, is there any way to investigate diamond shortness/control?

I am fine with 4C Minorwood over 3C in this scenario. But if we need to investigate (as here) diamond control we can't use Minorwood. That's o.k.; jumps to 4H (Diamond problem) or 4D (heart problem) are not needed for anything natural. Appropriate continuations by responder would include either 4NT or 5C as signoffs...other continuations to taste.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2014-March-05, 08:28, said:

I know that some very good players play Minorwood, but I think this is a pretty good example of its shortcomings.

I am a fan of minorwood with very few restrictions, but not because I am so naive to believe a keycard ask can solve all slam bidding problems.
However, having no keycard ask available makes my slam bidding on average worse. I also like conventions, which are simple and not prone to misunderstandings.
When a minor suit has been agreed I like to be able to stop in 4NT (after receiving a reply to a keycard ask), which admittedly is more important when playing Matchpoints or Board a match.
Many good minor suit slams are missed because many partnerships can not do that when they consider bypassing 3NT. So they stop in 3NT.
It is a trade-off.
I agree this hand is not perfect for minorwood. Otherwise this thread would probably not exist. It may be a field day for turbo.
But there are negative inferences when you deliberately bypass a convention like minorwood, say by bidding 5♣ over 3♣. That's why I would probably raise with your example Jx AQxxx x AJxxx.
An intelligent partner can sometimes anticipate your problem.

Would you give up Stayman, just because there are hands where you are not interested whether your partner has a four card major?
Would you even consider that fact a shortcoming of the convention?
Then better play no convention at all.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2014-March-06, 03:02, said:

However, having no keycard ask available makes my slam bidding on average worse.

Who is talking about having no ask available? The question is whether to use 4♣ or 4♦ as the ask and how to use the other one.

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2014-March-06, 03:45, said:

Who is talking about having no ask available? The question is whether to use 4♣ or 4♦ as the ask and how to use the other one.

I made some subtle additional points, which seem to have escaped your attention.

1) Stopping in 4NT. Obviously bidding room is important here if you want to, admittedly more so if diamonds is the key suit.
2) Simplicity and avoidance of misunderstandings. Redwood and kickback are not so simple. They also interfere with splinter and voidwood and with natural bidding or control bidding, depending on the bidding circumstances.
I do not like headaches whether a 4♥ bid is keycard for diamonds, or a suggestion to play, when you or your partner has bid hearts as a suit before.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2014-March-06, 03:02, said:

Would you give up Stayman, just because there are hands where you are not interested whether your partner has a four card major?

No, but if playing Stayman made it hard to bid cold games on common hand-types, I'd certainly consider changing my methods.

[aguahombre]

rhm, on 2014-March-06, 04:23, said:

I made some subtle additional points, which seem to have escaped your attention.

1) Stopping in 4NT. Obviously bidding room is important here if you want to, admittedly more so if diamonds is the key suit.
2) Simplicity and avoidance of misunderstandings. Redwood and kickback are not so simple. They also interfere with splinter and voidwood and with natural bidding or control bidding, depending on the bidding circumstances.
I do not like headaches whether a 4♥ bid is keycard for diamonds, or a suggestion to play, when you or your partner has bid hearts as a suit before.

Rainer Herrmann

I think the auction in the OP has been lost along the way.

1H-1S
2C-2D
3C-? ---Responder has the 3 level to further clarify the nature of his 4SF and suggest play in Hearts, Spades, or NT. 4-level jumps to ♦,♥,or♠ cannot provide any headaches about Responder wanting to play in those suits. 4♣ could be Minorwood; just not with the OP holding.

Alternatively:

1H-1S
2D-3C*
3D-? --- 3♥, 3♠, and 3NT are available to set strain. 4♦ could be Minorwood, with 4♣ or 4♥ used to suggest lack of control in the other one.

[Zelandakh]

aguahombre, on 2014-March-06, 09:04, said:

1H-1S
2D-3C*
3D-? --- 3♥, 3♠, and 3NT are available to set strain. 4♦ could be Minorwood, with 4♣ or 4♥ used to suggest lack of control in the other one.

Or:
4♣ agrees diamonds and starts a cue auction (4♦ being a club cue).
4♦ is a slam try agreeing diamonds.
4♥ agrees diamonds and asks for key cards.

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2014-March-06, 11:13, said:

Or:
4♣ agrees diamonds and starts a cue auction (4♦ being a club cue).
4♦ is a slam try agreeing diamonds.
4♥ agrees diamonds and asks for key cards.

Absolutely a good structure. but, I am trying to stay with Gonzalo's Minorwood theme, only addressing hands where it cannot be used because of an open side suit ---yet allowing it to be used when appropriate even though it establishes the strain for the first time at the 4-level.

[MinorKid]

Fluffy, on 2014-March-05, 06:51, said:

Assuming I had an agreement in place which I don't this gives up on spade fit and 3NT which is a bad idea in general, even worse at MPs.

The idea of non-forcing 4♣ is stupid. But a natural forcing 4♣ is not.