[inquiry]

For this discussion, I would like to assume that you play 2C-P-2H as instant double negative, such that 2C-p-2D is AT LEAST semi-positive (hence value showing).

How do you play the following auction?
2♣ - p - 2♦ - P
3♥?

I have become fond of playing this jump (and the jump to 3♠) as "optional blackwood". For our purpose, the desription of optional blackwood is a self-sufficient suit (typically no more than one loser opposite a singleton, but could be something like QJT9xxxx and really good in other suits) and of course, a very good hand, and it sets the trump suit.

Responders options are to,

• Reject blackwood by making the first step, this shows a bad 2D response and likely no real fit
  
• Accept blackwood by starting with the "second step" as per normal, such that over 3♥, a 3♠ bid would be I reject telling you my keycards for hearts, and 3NT over 3♥ is 1 or 4 keycards, 4♣ is 0 or 3 keycards, etc.

Should RESPONDER reject blackwood, the next bid FORCES responder to show keycards. Here, for sure responder will not have two keycards (or he would never reject), so the responses are modified... first step, none, second step, queen of agreed trumps, third step one key card.

Obviously, you would use optional Keycard only with fairly rare hands. So far, I have enjoyed this convention, any thoughts? I got this idea from some posting on Glen's Bridge Matters website.

[temp3600]

I play 3♥ as showing a self-sufficient suit, with pretty much the same requirements for the suit you described, and setting trumps.

If I generalize slightly, one player asks a yes/no question, and the other uses the first step for no, and several other steps for yes, while showing a feature at the same time (here his number of keycards).
I think it's a sound method, but also that the most important part of it is that yes/no question.

What is it here? Obviously it has to do with the quality of his semi-positive 2♦, and maybe also with his trump support.
So, what are their respective importance? If responder has a bad hand in both criteria it's an easy no, and if he has a good hand in both an easy yes. This leaves hands like Axxx x KQ10x xxxx and Qxx Qxx Kxxx Qxx. Good in one criteria, bad in the other.

So, to summarize a little my thinking about this, I think it is crucial to first define very clearly and precisely what hands by responder are worth a yes and which ones are worth a no, and only then add the twist over the yes answer.

[mike777]

Just to be clear, the standard approach is to cuebid over this 3H jump yes?
I assume our 2D promised at least a random K somewhere.

[FrancesHinden]

I prefer to stick with the more normal approach which is that a jump rebid asks for cuebidding (A or K), not RKCB responses. This seems much more useful than blackwood.

The concept of step 1 showing a bad hand is one we've used in other auctions, and it could be quite useful here.

2C - 2D
3H - 3S = bad hand
3NT = spade cue
(etc)

[inquiry]

Well, here is the problem I have with the cue-bidding approach, which is what I used to play. Partner cue-bids with fit and without, and with extras and without. I hadn't thought of the simple use of the denial 3♠ bid to suggest I am not too proud of my hand as a way not to suggest a bad 2♦ bid. That might fix most of my complaints about that bid. Frances, do you cue-bid First and Second round controls up the line, or first round first on this auction?

Still, after optional cue-bid, opener has room to use specific asking bids. This is less useful with a void, of course (in fact, the entire blackwood thing is less useful then while cue-bidding would be more useful).

[Gerben42]

Quote

For this discussion, I would like to assume that you play 2C-P-2H as instant double negative, such that 2C-p-2D is AT LEAST semi-positive (hence value showing).

3♥/♠ = 4-card major and longer ♦.
2♣ 2♦ 3♦ shows ♦ without a 4-card major.
After 2♣ 2♦ 3♣, 3♦ asks for a 4-card major.

I found this extremely useful.

[Fluffy]

I don't dislike the idea at all, it will play horrible with voids, but then, I open almost every hand with a void at the 1 level

[kenrexford]

I prefer this jump rebid to show a very strong suit, not necessarily solid, but demanding cues nonetheless.

The "answer" to the uncertain-if-fit-or-no-fit-extras-or-not problem is to use some variety of Serious 3NT by the weak hand, even though that sounds weird.

The understanding that I have used depends upon Responder's initial strength limitations. To explain:

If Responder's first bid was 2♥, a double negative denying as much as two queens, then 3NT after a jump (here, only to 3♠ is possible) shows the spade Queen, support, and an outside stiff.

If Responder bid 2♦ as GF and waiting, then Opener bid 3M, Responder bids 3NT if he has support for the major, a stiff outside, and would have been able to answer RKCB showing two or more key cards, or one key card if he holds the trump Queen.

This limits all other cuebids to one key card, or poor support, or no shape. Proven shape plus fit, then, denies more than one key card. Proven double key cards denies a good fit with shortness.

[mikeh]

The traditional method is, as noted, to use the jump to set trump and demand cues: and I used to play that a cue was an Ace and 3N denied Aces (one could well play that 3♠/♥ denied an Ace, with 3N being the ♠A, to allow opener to demand King cues by the cheapest step, thus 3♥ 3♠ 3N allowing maximal use of space, but the auction arose so infrequently that it seemed easier to stick with 3N as no Ace. For me, 2♦ always shows an A or a K, so I don't have to worry about responder not having something to cue.


As a matter of bridge logic, I think that optional keycard is a bad idea and the result of an over-dependence on keycard rather than judgment.

I truly believe that most advancing bridge players would benefit from severely curtailing their use of Ace asking bids... learn judgment rather than the use of the most abused device in the history of the game.

Anyway, for me (at least temporarily) this is all irrelevant since I am experimenting with 3♥ and 3♠ as 4 major and 5+ diamonds. Neither hand type has arisen since I made the switch so the jury is out on whether it is a good idea.

[SoTired]

mikeh, on Feb 23 2007, 07:28 PM, said:

I truly believe that most advancing bridge players would benefit from severely curtailing their use of Ace asking bids... learn judgment rather than the use of the most abused device in the history of the game.

With all due respect, I strongly disagree with this statement.

I believe that slam bidding and slam bidding judgement is one the most difficult aspects of bridge to master. Any review of mixed-strength travelers shows that non-experts are reluctant to investigate slam. Just determining which hands need investigation and which do not is an advanced skill and requires a degree of confidence in one's hand evaluation judgement that many players lack. The fear of moving beyond game bids is real. That is the first hurdle improving players need to overcome.

After that, a quick scan of threads on the BBO message boards reveal confusion in even basic slam bidding - even among good players and in established partnerships.

Therefore, I think it is unwise to advise improving players to curtail use of the one slam investigation tool that is well understood and defined. First, teach them which hands raise the slam flag. Let them use BW. Let them improve BW to RKC and its variants. Only after achieving near expert status, will they discover that on some hands BW does not provide the answers.

[mcphee]

While the common approach is the jmp sets trumps showing at most a 1 loser suit I am not sure this is best. The jump to show a 4 card major with long D has a lot of plus points, especially when you have 4H. While these hands do not come up every other 2C bid you open, the 6-4 hand pattern once you have elected to open 2C is very awkward to handle. Currently I use to jump to set suit, however I am going to convert to the 6-4 plan in a steady partnership with willing partners.

If not mistaken Kokish developed this plan and Eric has had more than 1 good idea before.