Help
I echo another post here. Figuring out what Responder has is extremely difficult, because he made a weird decision and because we don't know the entire cuebidding style. After cuebidding 3♣ and hearing a 3♠ cue from Opener, Responder skipped over an entire level of possible information exchange to hit us with RKCB and then ends the sequence with a grand slam last train call.
Assuming a logical partner, and assuming a fairly reasonable set of agreements, there are a few things that we should (IMO) expect.
(1) Partner knows that we cannot have the diamond King or Queen, because we did not cuebid 3♦ over his 3♣ call.
(2) Partner should not be interested in the club Queen (despite the actual hand) because he could have enabled a 4♣ cuebid (assuming serious 3NT), which would have converted out 6♣ call in the ensuing sequence from a King-show to a Queen-show. Hence, he cannot (logically) want that card.
(3) Partner knows our hearts precisely.
So, we get to spades. This is interesting. In theory, we now know (by virtue of the grand try) that partner must be looking at the spade Ace. Hence, we also know that partner knows from our 3♠ cue that we have the spade King. hence, it initially seems like we could have bid 5♠ after 5♦ to show the spade QUEEN. However, this is flawed, as 5♦ could have simply been a queen-check for the small slam purposes, such that partner might not have the spade Ace at that time.
This all seems to suggest that the only critical card that we might have is the spade Queen, and there is no other way tp ask about this except this specific auction and this specific call at this point.
Therefore, IMO the 6♦ call asks me to bid the grand if I have the spade Queen. Of course, this is all conditioned on a lot of assumptions as to agreements up to this point and upon a partner who thinks the same way that I do.
What's partner looking for ?
#21
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2011-February-24, 18:54
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#22
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2011-February-25, 14:19
kenrexford, on 2011-February-24, 18:54, said:
(2) Partner should not be interested in the club Queen (despite the actual hand) because he could have enabled a 4♣ cuebid (assuming serious 3NT)
He can bid 3NT even if we play non-serious 3NT. If I sign off over that, he can still bid RKCB, and he's at least gained the information that I don't like my hand much.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn