[inquiry]

Had this one and partner and I were not on the same page despite a meta rule for this situation. Ignoring for the moment, how many key cards do you think you have for partner? After some voting, I will mention what the meta rule is and see if that might alter your answer.

---

[trevahound]

I'm probably missing something obvious, but I couldn't have a worse hand for partner on this auction, could I?

[Cascade]

Partner asked a question I give the answer. I appear to have one key card I can't think of a reason to show a different number. Exclusion is not used for me in the first instance to exercise any judgement. It is for me to count up my key cards and trust that partner has exercised good judgement.

[gwnn]

I thought the question was going to be about 0 vs 1, not 1 vs 2... If we had had an agreement about 5-keycard exclusion, I trust you would've told us.

[the hog]

One key card.

[helene_t]

I can see a case for two keycards: With 6 or 7 hearts, p might have taken a different route since he would have been interested in the queen. If he has eight small ones we have effectively ♥AK. Then again, he could have eight to the king in which case he'll probably bid seven missing ♦A if we show two.

If he has seven to the king it probably doesn't matter since he won't bid seven missing ♥Q anyway. Or maybe he would? We could have three heart or the queen or the finesse could work.

Obviously if he has eight he is more likely to have the king. So showing two keycards is much more likely to work poorly than to work well.

I show one. If he signs off we might just be missing one ace but again, he is more likely to have ♥K and be missing the other aces.


Edit: lol, I somehow thought he had transfered rather than Stayman
It would make some sense to show two, then. It's only if p is 4-6 in the majors that the queen is not relevant.

This post has been edited by helene_t: 2014-July-18, 03:04

[gnasher]

Helen, which hand with an 8-card suit bids Stayman?

[mcphee]

Gee how many do I have? Can I make any valid excuse to tell I have more or less? Highly doubtful imho. If partner doesn't have his call it isn't my problem.

[rhm]

Why is this posted under "Expert-Class Bridge" ?

Do you want to establish a meta rule whereby a limited hand shows the number of key-cards minus the ones held in the void suit?

There may be merit in this idea, but my mental capacity for disasters at the Bridge table is already on overrun.

Rainer Herrmann

[fromageGB]

I give the simple answer of one, but I can see that there is a case for playing 6 ace responses, as partner is likely to be {445}x shape, so two might be your agreement.

Edit :

If that is your agreement, I play a 3-suited method of ace asking that also counts the Q of trumps in the initial response, so that makes 3 key cards. Putting them all in one bid, when you know all 3 suits are important, gives room for a side suit Q ask when this can be important for a running suit and the 13th trick.

[PhilKing]

I don't see how a meta rule can really apply. If you wanted a specific rule that the side kings count in situations where our trump fit can't be that big, then that's fine (although I think it is folly, since it is surely an accident in waiting).

Besides, partner could have:

♠Axx
♥AJxx
♦AKQxxx
♣-

On which he just wants a straight response.

[ahydra]

 PhilKing, on 2014-July-18, 04:38, said:

I don't see how a meta rule can really apply. If you wanted a specific rule that the side kings count in situations where our trump fit can't be that big, then that's fine (although I think it is folly, since it is surely an accident in waiting).

Besides, partner could have:

♠Axx
♥AJxx
♦AKQxxx
♣-

On which he just wants a straight response.

I don't think he has the HAJ given that we have those.

I also can't see why one would give any other response than one key card here. We have wasted KQ so no upgrades are possible, and we don't want partner blasting grand off an ace... I will show the HQ if he asks for it, of course.

ahydra

[fromageGB]

 PhilKing, on 2014-July-18, 04:38, said:

Besides, partner could have:

♠Axx
♥AJxx
♦AKQxxx
♣-

On which he just wants a straight response.

Does he? Wouldn't he like to know immediately of the ♠K, so that he can then ask for the ♠Q?

[gordontd]

 fromageGB, on 2014-July-18, 05:43, said:

Does he? Wouldn't he like to know immediately of the ♠K, so that he can then ask for the ♠Q?

How would he go about that, if that were his aim?

[wank]

 fromageGB, on 2014-July-18, 05:43, said:

Wouldn't he like to know immediately of the ♠K, so that he can then ask for the ♠Q?

no

[PhilKing]

 fromageGB, on 2014-July-18, 05:43, said:

Does he? Wouldn't he like to know immediately of the ♠K, so that he can then ask for the ♠Q?

Not unless you need 15 tricks for a grand slam.

And yes, I transposed the heart honours, but the point about answering honestly holds.

[fromageGB]

 gordontd, on 2014-July-18, 05:49, said:

How would he go about that, if that were his aim?

If your keycard reply showed the number of keycards (out of 7, AK in each suit plus the trump Q), and you had all of them between you, then the next step could be the side Q ask.

I have 4 step responses to the side Q ask; none, lower ranking, higher ranking, both. For this to work and keep below 6♥ on the wrong reply, this hypothetical responder hand would need to hear 6♣ or lower as the keycard response. Over 6♣, 6♦ is the side Q ask, and "none" puts you in the small slam, while the hoped-for 6NT lets you bid 7♥.

I don't play this over exclusion myself, but have it as part of the 3-suited open continuations, where the bidding starts lower. If you played it over exclusion, you would probably want to have compacted responses with an assumption that when teller has opened he will have a minimum of 2 out of the 7 - he can't have 0, and 1 is unlikely in this case. Your step keycard responses here could then be 2or5, 3or6, 4or7. The bidding could go 5♣ 5♥ showing the 3 you need to make the complete set of 7, 5♠(side Q ask) 6♦(1, the higher ranking), 7♥.

[fromageGB]

 PhilKing, on 2014-July-18, 06:26, said:

Not unless you need 15 tricks for a grand slam.

Maybe that's why I am not an expert; I never trust myself in a grand slam unless I can see 15 tricks.

[inquiry]

It seems that world is voting one key card.

See if this would affect your decision. Partner's auction showed hearts and spades. Why? With just hearts he would transfer to 2♥ then use Exclusion. The fact he went through stayman then jumped to 5♣ showed a spade suit by clear implication.

Our agreement is after notrump opening (1 or 2NT), if responder shows a two suiter then uses Blackwood after a fit is found, we use SIX keycard blackwood, four aces, and the kings of the two anchor suits partner showed (this we got from Book on Keycard Blackwood years ago). Partner agreed with all of you that say to show only one keycard. I followed what I thought was our agreement to show two (spade king, and heart ace). No real problem for us, we reached the laydown 6♥ contact, partner just tanked for a week before he bid it. He was missing the diamond ACE, and probably should have asked about the heart queen to see if I could I could show the ♠K and heart queen.

If YOU HAD SUCH an agreement related to responder with two suiters, would you have shown two key cards?

[helene_t]

No, I don't see why he couldn't be 3460. In any case he hasn't shown a two-suiter. As it happens my diamonds are weak but p doesn't know this. He might think that ♠K is not important because my spade losers might go on his diamonds.