Ambiguity between 0/3 and 1/4 keycards
David Babcock
actually resulted in a wildly wrong contract in high-level
competition? Any examples welcome.
The *0/4* mix-up in a 70s BB (or was it Olympiad) certainly shows that
a 0/3 or 1/4 disaster is at least conceivable...
David
alvin
David:
The 0/4 ambiguity occurred because the French were trying a new
partnership,. one of whom considered a sequence forcing and the other
invittional (or something less), and therefore had a misunderstanding
about the values needed for the sequence, even prior to the Blackwood
bid.
Yes, it is more likely (though merely a fraction above zero
likelihood) that 0 and 3 or 1 and 4 can be confused (than that 0 or 4
can be). Howeber, if asker holds at least two key cards than his
partner cannot hold four, and if asker holds at least three keycards
then his partner cannot hold three. So, in general, the hand with the
greater number of keys should ask. I do not know of an example.
Even where asker holds few keycards, he is probably asking because his
hand is distributional, or he holds numerous secondary honors in a
strong hand. If his partner shows any slam interest in the auction at
all, it must be because of aces (or trump honors). Thereore, confusion
is minimized.
Alvin P. Bluthman
apblu...@aol.com
David Babcock
> Howeber, if asker holds at least two key cards than his
> partner cannot hold four, and if asker holds at least three keycards
> then his partner cannot hold three. So, in general, the hand with the
> greater number of keys should ask.
Indeed, as far as the ambiguity is a factor. The question came up at
the club the other day in the context of whether responder, having
shown 0/3 or 1/4 to partner's RKC, should be required systemically to
continue if he has 3 or 4 keys, and my OP asked a question that might
affect that decision. The need to sort out 0/3 or 1/4 exists only
when the asker is relatively weak, as you have pointed out, and maybe
a useful second question would be whether a hand that is that much
weaker than partner's -- no keys or one without certainty of slam
opposite three, vs. three or more in partner's hand -- is the asking
hand very often in high-level competition. There are set-up examples
in some of the literature -- Bergen in_Slam Bidding Made Easier_ gives
one where the asker has zero key cards -- but now does *this* happen
much in high-level competition?
David
Fred.
I think that there were some spectacular examples with the basic
Blackwood with 4C showing 0 or 4 aces. In fact, I recall that this
history was one of the arguments against 5-ace variations of Blackwood
when they were introduced.
However, the fact that if you don't have suffcient controls for RKC
you are likely to get jammed in other ways, for instance 5S when
responder has 2 keys and the trump Q, may have taught people some
caution in its use.
Fred.
barryrigal
How top is top level -- will a European Championsis do?
OK it WAS Junior European Junior Champs and it was my only such
appearance in 1982.
During that event there were two incidents of this phenomenon; where
in one case our teammates played the wrong major suit at the four
level down one but gain 12 against 6Mx down three after RKC (both
auctions started 1H-1S-4H I think)
We were the beneficiaries against the Blakset brothers of a 0/3
accident where they played the grand down two I think.
27 years on all I can recall is that one member of our partnership was
looking at one cashing ace when the other doubled a grand with two
aces.
Barry
Richard Pavlicek
David Babcock asked:
> Has ambiguity between 0/3 or 1/4 key cards in the response to RKC ever
> actually resulted in a wildly wrong contract in high-level competition?
I've seen it happen twice in 40+ years of playing (thankfully both
against me), though one was a 2/5 mix-up. Hands were (approx):
AJxx x
AK QJTxxxx
Axx KQxx
Axxx x
2NT 4D
4H 4NT
5H Pass
Hoping for 4 key cards, he found 5 but didn't know it.
Our teammates just used Gerber and bid 6H (fortunately
having no way to locate the HK as six was the limit).
--
Richard Pavlicek
Web site: http://www.rpbridge.net
Raija D
"David Babcock" <dp...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:7ffd6bc4-9914-4cca...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
I have the agreement with all partners that holding three (not 0) the
answerer must go on over a signoff. Same with 4 (not 1) although that is
rare. There should be no ambiguity after that nad if three (or four)
keycards was not enough for slam, then the RKC'er should not have asked. I
have made this explicit statement on EVERY sys card I play once a partner
and I were several years ago ruled against bidding slam when the RKC asker
hesitated before signing off, and the responder had three aces and bid slam.
Common general bridge logic should have prevailed to support the decision to
bid slam but apparently that is not so. Or at least was not so at that
time.
Raija
David Babcock
> once a partner
> and I were several years ago ruled against bidding slam when the RKC asker
> hesitated before signing off, and the responder had three aces and bid slam.
> Common general bridge logic should have prevailed to support the decision to
> bid slam
Of the authors at hand, Rosenkranz/Truscott, Klinger and Mould agree,
Bergen disagrees, and Kantar employs the method (p. 237, bottom) but
the principle isn't stated as as part of his methods any more
generally than that (unless I've missed it).
Re the incident you mention: it inspires me to ask (more than slightly
OT): does a system document at hand saying that there is no systemic
alternative to action X suffice to show, for purpose of Law 16, that
there is no logical alternative to action X? Anyone know any case law
on this?
David
castigamatti
Hm, a funny hand. Too many controls in one hand, in a way too strong
for a 2NT although there is no other way of bidding the hand.
I can see another approach, although it is generally being made with a
somewhat weaker hand ( a hand with more weak spots).
2N - 3D
3H - 4H (slam try)
4N - 5C ( I assume 0-1 here is a better idea, or some other meaning )
5D - 6D
6H AP
Nevertheless this hand...
S x
H QJTxxxx
D KQJx
C x
...must be probably considered too strong, so it is close.
The problem of course is that with this hand...
S x
H QJTxxxx
D KJxx
C x
...one will consider the delayed game raise as well.
The key reasoning, in my opinion, is that one can't expect partner to
have more than two hearts when holding seven, despite his 2NT opening
basically guaranteeing two, not to mention that discovering partner,
later on, with a lone ace or king, can be very embarrassing. Another
approach is simply going through Gerber, in my opinion this a better
approach than just going through Texas and RKCB, considering responder
is missing 5 keycards. But it is much easier for me to speak from the
stand point of an observer.
Regards
BR
Barry Margolin
<9a445a75-8188-436d...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
David Babcock <dp...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Where this most often seems to come up is when a pair claims that they
*always* reopen when in the balancing seat at the 1 or 2 level. Even if
it's documented in the system notes, directors and ACs tend to be
skeptical that the players are religious about it. But without such
documentation, reopening with a minimum after partner hesitates is
almost guaranteed to be adjudicated against if it damages the opps.
On the other hand, when dealing with a convention system, I suspect the
documentation is more likely to be taken at face value.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Raija D
David
==============
If the system card defines certain action mandatory with no alternative
action, then I don't think there should be any problem. The TD cannot
expect partnership to violate partnership agreement, but it better be in
writing. I don't know of any case law except the case I was involved in
which I still remember clearly after a number of years.
In my case, there was a hesitation by the RKC asker, and responder went to
slam holding three aces. It was ruled to 5H making six. I can understand
it to a very little degree, but not much. The asker was trying to construct
a hand with zero keys (whether that was possible and he finally decided it
was possible) which is why he huddled and then signed off in 5H. My
explanation of agreed mandatory raise with three keys was not given any
consideration:( This took place in a senior regional in Mesa AZ in
probably 2001 and IRC our team won the event even with this misfortune. I
learned my lesson and now put in on all cards in writing.
Raija
dak...@aol.com
misses one key.
If that key is trump K, on a finesse for 7 AND 6 fails when the
finesse loses. Equals [set 2 < set 1] OR [grand >> slam]. A monster
IMP payoff.
But if that key is an A, there is no trump finesse -is that A the only
loser in 6? No chance for 7!
judyorcarl
The simplest procedure in pract
judyorcarl
The crucial requirement is for potential askers to plan carefully, in
advance, what their action will be over each possible reply, so that
said action will be in tempo. Freeing repliers to use their judgments
ethically.
That planning would also avoid the 5S problem. (Not asking when
lacking the Q would be a good start.)
Carl
Henry Lockwood
I once doubled opps' 7D contract, holding the (singleton) ace of
trumps. It turned out partner had the king, and glared at me briefly
when my ace crashed it. Can't remember the auction, though the post-
mortem involved the phrase "silly moo".
HenryL
Frances
I'm not sure what the definition of "high-level competition" is, but
we defended 7Sx-3 in the final of the mixed pairs at this year's
European Open championships in San Remo.
I have seen quite a few accidents with hearts as the trump suit when
responder shows "2 with" by bidding 5S and they are off two aces.
It wasn't high-level competition but my partner and I recently had a
very embarrassing +710 after an inverse 0/3 accident. Our teammates
reaction when asked which half of the partnership had been more
ridiculous (the hand that signed off in five, or the hand that failed
to raise) was "difficult to tell, 100% blame to both players"
Travis Crump
If you always raise with 3 keycards then why isn't it auto for the 4N
bidder to always bid 5M when he needs 3? It seems there is a disconnect
between we always raise to slam on 3+ and the 4N bidder having anything
to think about. Does 5M specifically ask for the Q or specific kings
opposite the 3+ variety?
Travis
David Babcock
> If you always raise with 3 keycards then why isn't it auto for the 4N
> bidder to always bid 5M when he needs 3?
If responder's prescribed action with 3 is to bid as though replying
as to a trump Q ask (his continuation should mean something more than
"hey, 3 here"), the cheapest-forcing-bid trump Q ask is usually
cheaper (for ex 4NT with spades agreed, Kickback, Redwood, Minorwood)
if asker is *sure* of 3. But there are situations where the tactic
youi describe is a space-saver, for ex 4NT (diamonds agreed, nothing
else available for RKC):5C:5D -- even if 3 keys are a lead-pipe cinch,
you're saving a step -- perhaps critical in fitting in a 3rd-round
control-ask later.
David
dak...@aol.com
(or weak bid) be ambiguous as to holding 3 or 0 keys; nor 1 or 4?? No
key/control clause in defining strong bids?? Bizarre!
Fred.
N: KQxxx KQJxxx x A
S: AJxxx x KQJ KQJx
Withour suggesting that the auction is correct:
S N
------- ------
1S 4NT
(1 or 3) oops?
is far from totally bizarre if North doesn't think things through.
Obviously, North can avoid the problem by requiring at least 3 key
cards before bidding Blackwood when partner has not made a strong
call. But, North does has a hand where the number of key cards says
how high.
Fred.
Fred.
Sorry. Distracted moment.
N: AJxxx x KQJ KQJx
S: KQxxxx KQJxx x x
I admit
1S 4NT
1/4 ?
comes closer to bizzare but still isn't all the way there.
Fred.
Fred.
Alan Malloy
7 isn't so bad though, is it? On the probable trump lead you have a
compound squeeze, working whenever North has three-plus diamonds, and on
a spade lead you can place the king and queen in the same hand
(depending whether the lead was SK or Sx) for a spade-diamond squeeze. I
think the best you can do on a club lead is play one opponent for long
clubs and the other for long diamonds, and on a diamond lead you have
the spade-diamond trump squeeze to work with.
Even on a heart lead you don't really want to be there at IMPs, but I
wouldn't be embarrassed to give it a try.
--
Cheers,
Alan (San Jose, California, USA)
paul
Not really pertinent but amusing: We had the auction 1C (16+
artificial) - 1H (8-10 artificial)-2H-3H-3S-4NT-5S. At this point I
realized I should've thought first with my single Ace, no help for it,
6H, and I get to play it thanks to the Meck Light 1H response. Two
finesses including the trump King worked, top board, we finished
first, there ain't no justice :)
Slightly more on topic, I certainly expect partner to bid on with 4
key cards, but 0/3 is a problem. I used to play partner should bid on
with 3 but encountered too many hands where that was wrong. It helps
if partner cue bids first since in my style cue-bids generally promise
a key card though not necessarily the Ace of the suit you're bidding.
Indiscriminate "any control" cue-bids would seem to increase the risk
of an RKCB misunderstanding.
alvin
alvin
Richard:
Responder knows that they are missing only ten or eleven HCP. It is
just barely possible for opener with 2 or 5 (and not the trump queen)
to hold only two (missing eleven). Something like:
KQJx x
Ax QJTxxxx
Axx KQxx
KOJx x
So responder must guess that opener holds one or the other.
Is there a better way?
Alvin P. Bluthman
apblu...@aol.com
Richard Pavlicek
> AJxx x
> AK QJTxxxx
> Axx KQxx
> Axxx x
>
> 2NT 4D
> 4H 4NT
> 5H Pass
>
> Hoping for 4 key cards, he found 5 but didn't know it.
>
> Our teammates just used Gerber and bid 6H (fortunately
> having no way to locate the HK as six was the limit).
Alan Malloy asked:
> 7 isn't so bad though, is it?
Fair; I'd guess around 55 percent, which is short of what
you'd want for a grand. That was my point of our teammates
being lucky not to find 5 key cards, as the swan hand would
surely bid it (for starters, any shape but 2=3 in the reds
makes it good).
Alvin (without the Chipmunks) Bluthman wrote:
> Responder knows that they are missing only ten or eleven HCP.
> It is just barely possible for opener with 2 or 5 (and not the
> trump queen) to hold only two (missing eleven). Something like:
>
> KQJx x
> Ax QJTxxxx
> Axx KQxx
> KOJx x
>
> So responder must guess that opener holds one or the other.
Yes, it's truly ambiguous.
> Is there a better way?
I don't see a solution within standard systems, so I guess this
is fodder for the strong clubbers -- got to give them a plum now
and then.
castigamatti
Well it is 22.5 between the two hands ( non standard points ).
I don't even have to play it.
:-)
BR
castigamatti
I meant 24,5.
:-)
Alan Malloy
I suppose if you played Kickback (4S asks) you could, over the 5D reply,
bid 5H: "two without the queen is not enough". Opener knows 5 without
the queen is surely enough, so he can go on. This doesn't solve the
problem, though, of a 5H reply to Kickback, as responder will be in the
same predicament if they trade rounded-suit queens.
David Babcock
> > Is there a better way?
>
> I don't see a solution within standard systems, so I guess this
> is fodder for the strong clubbers -- got to give them a plum now
> and then.
Perhaps Roman Gerber gives a hope. With 3 or 4, raise the NT signoff
or proceed over the suit sign-off with some structure that allows
showing the trump K as well as or instead of the trump Q. In the
given case, assuming 3014 RG: 2NT:4C:4H:5S (assuming 4S would be a
king ask) etc.
David
castigamatti
The sad truth is that I am your only hope.
lol
BR
David Babcock
> On Dec 23, 3:29 am, David Babcock <d...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Perhaps Roman Gerber gives a hope.
> The sad truth is that I am your only hope.
> lol
you may be right :-))))) but amend my PP to suggest that with 3 or 4
aces, the response to a 4NT sign-off be to show kings
David the ever-hopeful
castigamatti
Perhaps finding that lone queen is useful sometimes.
BR
Steve Willner
> If the system card defines certain action mandatory with no alternative
> action, then I don't think there should be any problem. The TD cannot
> expect partnership to violate partnership agreement
The legal answer to this has two pieces:
1. except in very rare cases, violating your system won't be considered
a logical alternative. (An example of a rare case might be if partner
opens 2C artificial and forcing, and you have seven clubs and a zero
count. It's conceivable that pass could be judged a logical
alternative, but it would take a rare and extreme hand type, and that's
not what the question is about.) More typically, if you play some
sequence forcing, pass won't be a LA _even if the whole rest of the
world plays that sequence as non-forcing_.
2. the SC is not _conclusive_ evidence of partnership agreements, though
in normal cases, it's fairly strong evidence. However, Travis asked the
right question:
> If you always raise with 3 keycards then why isn't it auto for the 4N
> bidder to always bid 5M when he needs 3?
If the 4NT bidder has to think about it, maybe this agreement isn't so
firm, despite what the SC says. As always, a TD (and perhaps AC) has to
weigh all the evidence. However, I don't think a notation on the SC
would make Hesitation Blackwood legal.
judyorcarl
A very well reasoned response.
Hesitation Blackwood always horrifies me.
It is a major omission in bridge education that when B'wood is taught,
students are not taught to plan their action over each possible
response, taking the time before bidding 4NT.
Carl
David Stevenson
>Hesitation Blackwood always horrifies me.
>
>It is a major omission in bridge education that when B'wood is taught,
>students are not taught to plan their action over each possible
>response, taking the time before bidding 4NT.
But there are always exceptions ....
I went on after my partner had bid 4NT, and signed off very slowly
over the response. While the TD ruled against me, the AC restored our
slam.
My problem was that I knew we were going to slam, my partner was
taking an interminable time over *every* call, and when he Blackwooded I
showed 1 or 4 without thought. His signoff was incredibly slow because
from his hand he knew that both 1 and 4 were impossible. Fair enough: I
had 2!!!!! :)
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
judyorcarl
> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Regardless of his normal tempo, he could and should have planned his
action over every possible response.
That said, I strongly believe that the number of aces in your hand can
never be UI; the review of the auction can never be UI either.
There is apparently a consensus that because partner's unconcealed
surprise at your response "woke you up to your error," those become
UI. I think that's nuts. Procedural penalty, maybe, but no
constraint on your action.
Carl