[32519]

None Vul:
As the dealer I opened the bidding 3♦ with a 7-card ♦ suit topped by the KQJ and nothing outside (those were my only HCP). LHO has an 11 count, a (almost) text book t/o X with a 4504 distribution. Partner held a fantastic hand with a big ♦ fit and bid 4♦ over the t/o X intending it as Minorwood. I understood the bid to be just competitive.

1. Who is right and who is wrong? Does Minorwood still apply after a t/o X by the opponents in this sequence?
2. What about 4♦ over a 3♥ or 3♠ overcall by the opponents? Is it Minorwood or just competitive?

[Codo]

In my partnerships minorwood would be off over a 3m preempt and it would be off because it is off if the simple raise is needed.
So it was surely and 100 % off.

[blackshoe]

The underlying problem here is not whether minorwood is on or off, but that you made an agreement with your partner regarding an uncontested auction, and did not discuss how interference affects it. I would lay the fault for that on both partners.

If you're asking a bidding theory question — should a simple raise of a three level preempt be minorwood (a) absent competition, (b) in competition — I would answer "no" to both. If you want an ace asking bid after a 3 level preempt, try 4♣ over 3♦, ♥, or ♠, and 4♦ over 3♣. I would not use normal RKC responses, either, as some of them should be impossible by a preemptive opener. I'm sure if you search the web you can find this convention, with a decent response structure. Or perhaps someone will post on it here.

[32519]

What would a "redouble" from partner over the opponents t/o double imply? 4th seat has yet to get in on the action.

[Zelandakh]

As Ed writes, a simple raise of a preempt should not be Minorwood at all, whether in competition or not. Using 4♣ for this purpose makes much more sense. The typical responses to a key card ask by a preemptive hand are 0, 1, 1+q, 2, 2+q. For a redouble, take your pick from a. penalty, looking to double them somewhere; b. general values, maybe double them, maybe bid constructively; c. rescue, wanting to play in own long suit; d. anything else that seems logical to you and your partner. I would think c is generally a bad idea since it helps the opps to pinpoint when the hand is a misfit. I doubt it makes a huge difference what you play it as though; it is going to come up once a year if you are lucky. I would concentrate on avoiding agreements like the raise of a preempt being Minorwood before worrying about the meaning of rare redoubles.

[32519]

Turns out the argument over the misunderstanding here was this:
"The t/o X never consumed any of our bidding space! Additionally, I am sitting behind the t/o doubler with a big hand. Anything coming out of doubler's hand, chances are excellent I got the next higher card! I would have bid 5♦ to signoff at these colours with ♦ support and little else. So to me 4♦ was still Minorwood."
So I got a tongue-lashing here! Does this argument make sense to anyone?

[PhilKing]

Please stop playing "Minorwood."

[FrancesHinden]

As every other poster has said, playing a raise of 3D to 4D in an uncontested auction as asking for kecyards is, um, not recommended.
So what do you want us to say about how to play it in a contested auction? It's whatever you and your partner have agreed it to mean. Neither of you is 'right' or 'wrong', except that your partner is wrong for bidding 4D in competition at all: if you haven't agreed it, don't bid it at the table.

[32519]

This post is copied in from the other Minorwood thread.

PhilKing, on 2013-May-16, 17:56, said:

<snip>

Thanks Phil! Without realising it you have probably answered my question in the OP, “Who is right and who is wrong?” Below is an extract from the link you posted:

From the opening paragraph –

The origin of this variation of the Blackwood conventional method is unknown. As the designation signifies, this variation is only employed when the established or inferred trump suit is a Minor suit. Since there are several idle bids in the application of this conventional method, many variations abound.

From further down the article –

The partnership is urged to experiment with several versions and then agree upon one definite form of the concept, one which is most comfortable for the partnership and which cannot easily become confusing.

Here lies the root of our problem. We only had a partial agreement (uncontested auctions), nothing about contested auctions. But even this is not entirely accurate.
1. We have an agreement that partner must have a very good reason to remove a pre-empt in order to play in a different suit. Why? For the simple reason that inevitably the pre-empters hand is completely useless outside the pre-empt suit whereas partner’s hand possibly has good trick taking value in the other 3 suits.
2. We have tried to minimise memory load by, wherever possible, have bids retain the same meaning if the opposition intervention does not hamper or obstruct our normal continuation bidding structure.
3. We also have an agreement not to push the opponents into game in a major when the bidding and your own hand strength and holding in their suit indicates that they will probably be making 10 tricks.
4. We also have a converse agreement to point 3, and that is, “push them to game if you are confident of playing them down.”
5. So in this Minorwood thread, the t/o X did not interfere in any way, nor did it consume any bidding space. Partner’s bid of 4♦ now became a double-edged sword. It retains its original meaning of Minorwood and I was expected to respond accordingly. For Zel’s benefit: We have adopted your response structure when answering to a pre-empt. So my answer over 4♦ would be 4NT (1 keycard with the trump queen).
The double-edged sword? If the opponents bid 4M (or even 5M) over a 5♦ contract, partner with the big hand can now extract a juicy penalty double.

Thanks to Phil I can now answer my own question: It was me that was wrong!

[manudude03]

The opponents are unlikely to bid 4M over minorwood. If they do, they have a lot of shape and you may well find you're not beating this as much as you think (unless the opponents are insane of course).