A somewhat odd situation

[bhmwe...@gmail.com]

It's not unusual to use Blackwood in order to check that the opponents don't hold too many aces.
But yesterday I used Blackwood to check that partner did not hold too many aces!

The hand:
AQ8752 A64 AK9 A

I opened 1C (strong, 18+), partner responded 1N (= 7-10, balanced).
On my 2S partner responded 4S, and I asked with 4 N (RKC, 1430)
When partner respionded 5D showing that he did not have the SK, the slam seemed much safer in my mind. I was happy that partner did not have too many aces!

[Howard Brazee]

It is rare when one partner has 4 aces that his partner has very many
aces.


--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[bhmwe...@gmail.com]

Den tisdagen den 13:e november 2012 kl. 17:32:40 UTC+1 skrev Howard Brazee:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:51:34 -0800 (PST), bhmwe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >It's not unusual to use Blackwood in order to check that the opponents don't hold too many aces.
>
> >But yesterday I used Blackwood to check that partner did not hold too many aces!
>
> >
>
> >The hand:
>
> >AQ8752 A64 AK9 A
>
> >
>
> >I opened 1C (strong, 18+), partner responded 1N (= 7-10, balanced).
>
> >On my 2S partner responded 4S, and I asked with 4 N (RKC, 1430)
>
> >When partner respionded 5D showing that he did not have the SK, the slam seemed much safer in my mind. I was happy that partner did not have too many aces!
>
>
>
> It is rare when one partner has 4 aces that his partner has very many
>
> aces.

True, but partner could have one ace (as we play 5-ace blackwood), but the unusual thing was that when partner did not have one ace I felt confident about the slam. Had ha had one ace the slam would have felt less secure.

[Charles Brenner]

Your anecdote exposes a paradox in calling the trump king an "ace". A
real ace is worth at least a trick, and if the partnership has the K
it also promotes the K from a half to a full trick, hence the real Ace
can easily be worth one and a half tricks. By contrast the trump king
facing A, Q, and length as in your example is only worth half a trick
-- a mere shadow of an ace!

Charles

[Dave Flower]

On Tuesday, 13 November 2012 09:51:34 UTC, bhmwe...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's not unusual to use Blackwood in order to check that the opponents don't hold too many aces. But yesterday I used Blackwood to check that partner did not hold too many aces! The hand: AQ8752 A64 AK9 A I opened 1C (strong, 18+), partner responded 1N (= 7-10, balanced). On my 2S partner responded 4S, and I asked with 4 N (RKC, 1430) When partner respionded 5D showing that he did not have the SK, the slam seemed much safer in my mind. I was happy that partner did not have too many aces!

I don't really follow - if partner is missing the SK, there could well be a loser.

Now I posted a hand a few years ago where, holding S QJxxxxx. I opened 1C, Precision, and partner responded 1S. promising 5+ spades. Now that is a somewhat odd situation!

Dave Flower

[dake50]

When partner respionded 5D showing that he did not have the SK, the slam seemed much safer in my mind. I was happy that partner did not have too many aces!

***6S is far safer than 7S that may have been tried after 5C=1 key.
Is that your suggestion?

[Adam Beneschan]

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:56:41 AM UTC-8, bhmwe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Den tisdagen den 13:e november 2012 kl. 17:32:40 UTC+1 skrev Howard Brazee:
>

> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:51:34 -0800 (PST), [] wrote:

> > >It's not unusual to use Blackwood in order to check that the opponents don't hold too many aces.

> > >But yesterday I used Blackwood to check that partner did not hold too many aces!

> > >The hand:

> > >AQ8752 A64 AK9 A

> > >I opened 1C (strong, 18+), partner responded 1N (= 7-10, balanced).

> > >On my 2S partner responded 4S, and I asked with 4 N (RKC, 1430)

> > >When partner respionded 5D showing that he did not have the SK, the slam seemed much safer in my mind. I was happy that partner did not have too many aces!

> > It is rare when one partner has 4 aces that his partner has very many
> > aces.

> True, but partner could have one ace (as we play 5-ace blackwood),

You may play a convention called (jokingly?) 5-ace Blackwood, but there are still only four aces in the deck, and when you suddenly use a different meaning for a term (like "ace") than readers are used to, it's confusing. The usual term, to refer to the four aces and the king of trump, is "key card". And I think "5-ace Blackwood" is more commonly referred to as "Key Card Blackwood", if my assumption is correct that the responses are the same.

> but the unusual thing was that when partner did not have one ace I felt confident about the slam. Had ha had one ace the slam would have felt less secure.

That would make sense only if your partner's 4S bid guaranteed 4+ spades. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the nuances of whatever strong club system you're playing.

-- Adam

[Adam Beneschan]

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 6:15:14 AM UTC-8, Dave Flower wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 November 2012 09:51:34 UTC, bhmwe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > It's not unusual to use Blackwood in order to check that the opponents don't hold too many aces. But yesterday I used Blackwood to check that partner did not hold too many aces! The hand: AQ8752 A64 AK9 A I opened 1C (strong, 18+), partner responded 1N (= 7-10, balanced). On my 2S partner responded 4S, and I asked with 4 N (RKC, 1430) When partner respionded 5D showing that he did not have the SK, the slam seemed much safer in my mind. I was happy that partner did not have too many aces!
>
>
>
> I don't really follow - if partner is missing the SK, there could well be a loser.

I think the idea is that, assuming partner has 4+ spades, there's a 50% chance of a loser in a suit--but given that partner's response shows a narrow HCP range, the missing king in spades would be (very roughly speaking) converted to three HCP in some other suit(s), and if it's the king in some other suit, that king would be a certain trick. So following this logic, the hand might have a half-trick greater playing potential. In reality I'm sure it's less than a half trick.

This is something that might be studiable with a simulation. Determine how many tricks are available, double-dummy, opposite balanced 7-10 hands with the spade king, and opposite balanced 7-10 hands without the spade king. I think the average number of tricks in the latter case might be greater than the former, although I doubt the difference is more than 0.3. That's just my guess.

-- Adam

[Adam Beneschan]

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:16:59 AM UTC-8, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 6:15:14 AM UTC-8, Dave Flower wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 13 November 2012 09:51:34 UTC, bhmwe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > It's not unusual to use Blackwood in order to check that the opponents don't hold too many aces. But yesterday I used Blackwood to check that partner did not hold too many aces! The hand: AQ8752 A64 AK9 A I opened 1C (strong, 18+), partner responded 1N (= 7-10, balanced). On my 2S partner responded 4S, and I asked with 4 N (RKC, 1430) When partner respionded 5D showing that he did not have the SK, the slam seemed much safer in my mind. I was happy that partner did not have too many aces!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I don't really follow - if partner is missing the SK, there could well be a loser.
>
>
>
> I think the idea is that, assuming partner has 4+ spades, there's a 50% chance of a loser in a suit--but given that partner's response shows a narrow HCP range, the missing king in spades would be (very roughly speaking) converted to three HCP in some other suit(s), and if it's the king in some other suit, that king would be a certain trick. So following this logic, the hand might have a half-trick greater playing potential. In reality I'm sure it's less than a half trick.
>
>
>
> This is something that might be studiable with a simulation. Determine how many tricks are available, double-dummy, opposite balanced 7-10 hands with the spade king, and opposite balanced 7-10 hands without the spade king.

Sorry, I forgot to include the condition that the hand has to have four spades. You could also do a simulation including hands with three spades but in that case I'm guessing you'd get the opposite result (i.e. the hands *with* the spade king will produce a higher number of average tricks).

-- Adam

[Sid]

"dake50" wrote in message
news:9b24c6a1-3d33-42eb...@googlegroups.com...

=========

And this was in response to... ???

Sid

[Travis Crump]

I think we need a lot more description of the bidding then we've been
given if we want to try to make any real assumptions. After 1C-1N;
2S-?, what is the difference between 3S and 4S and 2N followed by 4S.
What would 4C/4D/4H have meant[8 cards in the suits and concentrated
values seems logical, though possibly always 4-4]. Assuming partner
could still be the whole range of 7-10 on this auction seems horrible.

Travis

[derek]

I know it's practically impossible decode most of Dake's pontifications, but surely it's in response to the original post - the one he actually quoted. [I think he's wrong - I believe Bjorn meant he was less likely to have 2 losers if partner didn't have the KS, because the points had to be elsewhere]

[David Stevenson]

Adam Beneschan wrote

>You may play a convention called (jokingly?) 5-ace Blackwood, but there
>are still only four aces in the deck, and when you suddenly use a
>different meaning for a term (like "ace") than readers are used to,
>it's confusing. The usual term, to refer to the four aces and the king
>of trump, is "key card". And I think "5-ace Blackwood" is more
>commonly referred to as "Key Card Blackwood", if my assumption is
>correct that the responses are the same.

5-ace Blackwood and Key Card Blackwood are basically the same, using
the king of trumps as an ace or key card, with response 0/4 1/5 2 3.

Roman Key Card is, of course, different. People very annoyingly call
that Key Card, either through laziness or ignorance, causing some
confusion.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[bhmwe...@gmail.com]

No, my suggestion is that 6S is far safer with partner having (potentially) kings in hearts or clubs, than 6S with partner having the SK and possibly not the KH och CK.

[Steve Willner]

On 2012-11-15 4:44 AM, bhmwe...@gmail.com wrote:
> my suggestion is that 6S is far safer with partner having
> (potentially) kings in hearts or clubs

Partner's jump to 4S didn't deny outside first or second round controls?
That _is_ a somewhat odd situation.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[Carl]

On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:36:50 PM UTC-5, Steve Willner wrote:
> On 2012-11-15 4:44 AM, bhmwe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > my suggestion is that 6S is far safer with partner having
>
> > (potentially) kings in hearts or clubs
>
>
>
> Partner's jump to 4S didn't deny outside first or second round controls?
>
> That _is_ a somewhat odd situation.
>

I concur that it's odd playing 2/1 but I cannot vouch for 1CF. After all, only one suit has been bid naturally.