Duh!!!

After discussing general principles with a regular partner of mine, I realized something rather stupid.

My general rules had been that a leap to the five-level was Exclusion RKCB if I could be short in the suit but, if not, then RKCB for this suit. In other words, assume a cuebidding sequence where spades are trumps. 4NT would be RKCB for spades. Obvious. However, what is 5♣? In some situations, such as where I could be short in clubs, 5♣ would be defaulted as Exclusion RKCB. If, however, I am known to have length in that suit, then 5♣ would be RKCB, except that partner is expected to treat the King and Queen of clubs as the key cards and ignore his King and Queen of spades. This would typically make sense if, for example, we already know about the spade secondaries because of trump cues, or because I as the asker am looking at them.

My partner suggested another level to this general rule, one that made me say, "Duh!!!"

If partner has already denied, say, a club control, then what the heck would be the purpose of 5♣ as Exclusion RKCB? Similarly, if we have already shown all of the top three cards in clubs, or have denied these, then how can 5♣ be asking that question?

The rules should make more sense.

I still believe that the general defaults should apply. If, however, the normal default would make no sense, such as if the default would suggest Exclusion in a way where Exclusion would be stupid, and where RKCB in that suit would be illogical, then the bid should mean something different.

What precisely these should mean are worth considering.

It dawned upon me that one reasonable default is to look to the next suit up, using the "useful space" principle. Consider as an example a sequence where spades are agreed as trumps. Suppose that the normal defaults would suggest that 4NT is RKCB, 5♣ is RKCB (but answer club secondaries), 5♦ is Exclusion, and 5♥ is RKCB (but answer heart secondaries). If 5♣, however, would make no sense as RKCB for club secondaries (because Opener has denied the A/K/Q of clubs) or as Exclusion (for the same reason), then look one up. Bump the 5♦ meaning down on, to save space, such that 5♣ would be Exclusion now, but excluding diamonds. If that meaning also make no sense, bump down the meaning of 5♥ to make 5♣ be RKCB for the heart secondaries. If the 5♦ meaning is bumped down to 5♣, then the 5♦ call now would likewise grab hold and pull down the prior 5♥ meaning.

This might be a tad difficult, as then partner, if hearing a 5♥ call, would have to think through whether 5♦ or 5♣ would have made sense, and similarly you would have to assess the same thing before bidding the otherwise obvious 5♥. A safer technique might be to have an impossible ask (like 5♣) always flag the highest other option. How would this work?

Well, consider the example again. If 5♣ makes no sense under the existing defaults, then it shows the normal 5♥ meaning or, if that makes no sense either, the 5♦ meaning. This is safer for a few reasons. First, if you forget or do not realize that 5♣ would have worked, you bid your normal 5♥, risking only partner looking at you scornfully for forgetting that 5♣ would have worked just fine. If you bid 5♣, partner knows that this makes no sense and then knows to figure out what you really mean, according to the agreements. Plus, perhaps most importantly, the 5♦ call is unaffected, such that you do not have to think about the possible meanings for 5♣ as asker or answerer to a 5♦ call.

The second way is much safer. The first way technically seems to have more options, such as defining cleared bids at the top in new and creative ways.

Be Practical (Me?!?)

A discussion on BBF went unresolved, as each side took their view and stuck to it. For my part, I am firmly convinced, especially having run this by my regular partner and having read Fred Gitelman's agreement.

The situation, Part I:

Your partner opens 2♣, and you respond 2♦, played as waiting but GF. Partner rebids 3♦, presumably 6+ and very very strong.

What call would you make with something like ♠AJ10xx ♥x ♦xxx ♣Kxxx? (With a spade suit not good enough to make a positive response)

My view (shared by some in the debate) is that this calls for an immediate splinter (4♥) in support of diamonds. Sure, you might miss a spade fit. Sure, partner will not know that you have a trick source in spades. But, this is a critical situation to be practical. You have three controls, a stiff in hearts, and great diamond support. The question will be 6 or 7, not strain. With space at a premium, do not box yourself out of the ability to share incredibly good news.

Part II:

You, instead, have ♠Qxxxx ♥KQx ♦Jx ♣xxx, so you decide to show that spade suit, bidding 3♠. Partner bids 3NT. Now what?

At this point, the debate was between 4NT and 4♦. Obviously, with slammish values and a stiff diamond, 4NT is your call. Equally obvious is that 4♦ would be your call with three diamonds and, per force, a side doubleton. This hand is in the middle. Which way to go?

My view is that 4♦ is right. Partner is known to have a long diamond suit that lacks the Jack. Give him any number of possible diamond holdings, and he almost always will be primarily concerned about whether his suit will produce to maximum expectations. When partner is known to be huge, tell him what he needs to know. 4NT will sound like a stiff to him, which will assuredly be overly discouraging.

Also, when in doubt, opt the lower option -- you will have more space to explore options.

Part III:

So, you opt 4♦. What should happen next?

Presumably, partner will usually be able to cue 4♥. Let's assume that. What should Responder's calls mean?

IMO, 4♠ should show a spade control, not two top spades. This is a lopsided-strength sequence. Opener is not likely to be concerned about your spades to get to 12 tricks.

IMO, 4NT should (deny a spade control and) show poor trumps in this sequence. This would be a parallel to 3NT in a minor slam-probe.

IMO, 5♣ should (deny a spade control but show one of the top three diamonds and) show a club control.

Part IV:

So, you hear 4♥ and cue 4NT (no spade control, poor trump contribution). Opener cues 5♣? That should be last train, seeing if you have 5332 or 5233/5323.

You sign off.

Funny hand from tonight -- would have been easy

I am not providing the hands or the actual auction, because the bidding was silly and the result absurd. Suffice it to say that the opponents ended up in 6NT doubled, missing three Aces.

However, the problem was intriguing. I'll give the patterns:

Opener: 3154
Responder: 5503

Assuming that Opener is strong enough to open a strong forcing 2♣ (standard), how is this pattern resolved (also assuming that Responder's majors are too weak to positive)?

This is not all that difficult if 2♣ tends to deny a four-card spade suit and 2♦ shows a hand with four spades (strong), with my methods.

2♣-P-2♦(waiting, GF)-P-
3♦(natural, no 4-card major)-P-3♥(five hearts)-P-
3♠(no heart fit, three spades)-P-4♠(or cue if stronger)

Easy. (Opener would have bid 2♠ with four hearts and a longer minor or 1-4-4-4.)

The actual problem faced by my opponents was a 4♦ overcall of 2♣. Now what?!?!?

This also is rather simple:

2♣-4♦-4♥-P-
4♠(spade fragment)-all pass

Now, maybe 4♥ is wrong, and maybe Opener should pass 4♥. But, you see the point. If Opener has four spades, he must be balanced, where he could pass 4♥. If he bids spades, then, he must have only three of them but unbalanced.

Neat, eh?

I liked 6NTX, though.

Interesting Discussion Hands

From a discussion on BBF:

Opener: ♠Axx ♥Ax ♦KQJx ♣KQJx
Responder: ♠KQxxx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣Axx

As you can see, agreeing spades, having Opener bid 4NT as RKCB, and getting "three" and then "with the Queen" makes bidding 7NT (13 top tricks if spades behave) easy. Add the spade Jack to Opener's hand if you want.

However, after a 2NT opening by Opener, this task is more difficult and resulted in the discussion.

My initial thought was that this is a good problem explaining why 3-card super-acceptances after a 2NT opening make sense, IMO. If Opener can set trumps immediately, such as with a 4♣ cue, Responder can reciprocate with a 4♦ cue and we are off, well-placed to bid this hand. The risk is in reaching 4♠ without much play, such as opposite trash on the outside and weaker spade honors. However, that risk seems somewhat worth taking, because of cramped space. After 1NT and a transfer, Responder might have options like three of the other major or a fake minor or a splinter to get things headed in the right direction. Nothing is available over 2NT below game if Opener does not super-accept.

An interesting alternative, or an additional tool if you will, was suggested by "pclayton" as from Meckwell, apparently per Walter Johnson, namely that a transfer followed by a five-level call by Responder is immediate RKCB answering. I assume that 3♥...5♣ would show a five-card spade suit with slam interest and 3 key cards, 5♦ then as a queen-ask, whereas 4♥...5♣ might be the same start but with six+ spades. Not sure. I'm also not sure precisely how Opener gets out at 5NT if that is right. Presumably 5NT is to play, whereas 6♣ might be the specific King ask.

This seems workable. It gives up on Exclusion, but that seems rare. Maybe Texas and then the five-level is Exclusion? Not sure what Meckwell does or what makes sense. I just found this idea interesting. I have used similar concepts myself in some sequences, and I have even found the usefulness of occasional calls that demand that partner ask. This seems like a good solution for a difficult problem.

A BBF problem with a solution

The more I see problem after problem crop up, the more I like my ideas for using 2♦ as a second strong opening.

An example hand, from BBF:

Opener: ♠KQJx ♥AJxx ♦AKQ10x ♣--
Responder: ♠Axxx ♥Qx ♦xxxx ♣Kxx

The discussion was as to what should happen after an uncontested start of 1♦-P-1♠. One stand out option was a 4♣ preempt, which excites Responder little. Even if Responder does have interest, his only option seems to be a 4♥ last train call, showing general but insufficient interest without a diamond card. Maybe that works.

Fred G. suggested using a rebid of 4♣ not as a Walsh Fragment (roughly, a strong 6-4 game raise), but rather as a general, all-purpose super-power slam invite. I have no idea what that means, or what Responder should do about that.

My auction:

2♦ (Strong, artificial, forcing, with 4+ spades)
2NT (GF, with spade fit. Sets trumps. Promises better than a "minimum game raise.")
3♥ (Shows hearts and spades for cuebidding purposes. In other words, Opener wants to hear about spade and heart honors, whether Ace, King, or Queen)
3♠ (One of the top three spades; obviously the Ace)
3NT (Serious -- tactical, to get under 4♣)
4♣ (club control)
4♦ (club control not enough -- I have a diamond control)
4♥ (heart Ace, King, or Queen; obviously King or Queen)

At this point, Responder has gotten off his chest the club card. He has also been able to establish trumps low enough to have cuebidding occur. He has been able to show the heart Queen. This is good. Opener can now make a more informed decision.

An alternative choice early on leads to another decent sequence.

2♦ (same)
2NT (same)
3♣ (general non-informative cue -- asks for cuebidding of controls to start)
3♠ (no first or second-round red control, one of the top three spades -- the Ace obviously)
3NT (serious, with sufficient red controls)
4♣ (club control)
4♦ (diamonds really controlled)
4♥ (tertiary heart control)

Because Responder cannot have just the spade Ace and club King (would bid 3♥ over 2♦ as a minimum game raise in spades with at most one internal card and one external King), Opener knows that Responder cannot simply have a doubleton heart. There must be some other redeeming value.

Notice how Opener has no problem with this three-suited hand. In fact, a GF is set up with general strength parameters and fit established and the entire three-level still available for slam probes and cues.

Had Responder bid 2♥ over 2♦ (waiting, no spade fit), Opener could rebid 3NT to show 4441/4450 and not super-huge (would bid 4♣). Responder could then agree diamonds or hearts below game in either suit, if he wanted.

An Easy Problem?

On BBF, the following pair of hands was posted, with the question being whether anyone could avoid the trap of playing in 7♥. I thought this was somewhat interesting, in the solution, but incredibly easy, despite a number of convoluted sequences and "he should she should" analyses.

Opener: ♠ KQJxx ♥ xxxx ♦ A ♣ AJx
Responder: ♠ Ax ♥ AKQx ♦ KQx ♣ K10xx

The auction, 2/1 GF, started 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♥-P-3♥. Good start. At this point, however, the two auctions at two tables diverged, one Opener electing a 4♦ cuebid and the other 4♣. I don't get 4♦ at all. In the end, some guessing was required.

This seems so easy, though. But, there is a nice nuance late in the auction.

The obvious continuation seems to be for Opener to first cue his spades (3♠) to show two of the top three spade honors. Responder then bids 3NT serious. Opener can now cuebid 4♣. This should be enough for Responder to launch into RKCB.

After the 5♥ response (two, without), Opener can bid 5♠. Now, whatever agreements you have for 5♠, this leads to a nice call.

If 5♠ is a cheaper way of bidding specific Kings up-the-line, then Opener should bid 5NT to "show the King of spades." This shows something completely different, however. As Responder is making a grand slam probe, we must have all of the Aces. Therefore, Responder must have the spade Ace. If he has the spade Ace, then he knows that we have the spade King-Queen. Therefore, bidding 5NT to show the spade King would be redundant. It would be equally redundant to bid 5NT to show the spade Queen. Therefore, 5NT must show the unknown additional spade value of the spade Jack.

If 5♠ is an asking bid, asking for the spade King, then in this situation, for the same reason, 5♠ should be understood by both parties as actually asking for the spade Jack.

You will notice that this is a unique sequence, in that Opener, only because he lacks the spade Ace, knows from the grand slam try that 5NT shows the spade Jack, because Responder must have the spade Ace and must, therefore, already know about the top three spade honors. Otherwise, had Opener held the spade Ace, this nuance would not be known, and this 5♠ bid would be seeking the spade King (as opposed to the Queen). Responder should equally be in on this nuance.

In any event, look what Responder will now know. He will be able to count five rippers in the minors (diamond A-K-Q plus club A-K). He can count three heart tricks, now up to eight tricks. With the known four spade tricks (A-K-Q-J), he has 12 tricks, with three trick sources for a thirteenth -- spades coming in, hearts coming in, or something in clubs coming in -- plus all sorts of squeeze possibilities. The multiple options in three suits seems to clearly outweigh placing all of your eggs in the basket of hearts splitting 3-2 or partner having the Jack (and hearts not being 5-0), and no immediate spade or club ruff on opening lead.

Strong Forcing Opening

I have been working quite a bit on an idea I had a while back for improving the handling of strong, forcing openings in a natural system. While doing so, I have noticed that a lot of questions posted on BBF and a lot of trouble hands from international competition involve this same theme.

The trouble with strong, forcing openings is similar for natural systems and for strong club systems, although in the strong club context interference is necessary to create this problem and sometimes mitigates this problem somewhat by the intervening bid having definition. The problem is strain.

Sure, if Opener has a five-card major and Responder has a fit, strain is less problematic. However, I would imagine that everyone has gripes about their strong auctions and matters of strain. Even when strain can ultimately be resolved, which is not always the case, the space needed to resolve strain robs us of space necessary or prudent to then turn to the second question of level.

I mean, 2/1 GF auctions are easy. Auctions where one partner is blessed with a huge hand are a mess. This seems terrible, but the problem of strain remains always present and always meddlesome.

There have been numerous attempts to patch-solve strain matters within the context of a strong 2♣ opening, like the idea from Giorgio Belladonna to have jumps to 3♥ and 3♠ as major-diamond canape bids. I think Belladonna was onto something in using canape as a tool for handling strong hands. However, I don't think he went far enough.

There have also been those who realize that 2♣ cannot effectively handle everything, incorporating something like Multi to grab off some hand patterns. Or, the French methods of 2♦ for major hands. I think that this is the right general course, having two strong, forcing openings, and incorporating an element of canape bidding into the approach.