[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2013-August-17, 00:56, said:

This "artifical method" is forced on you by the lack of bidding room. Other methods are not possible.

That's not true. There are two possible ways to treat this sequence:
(1) The auction is solely a discussion of controls. We always get to slam when the controls are sufficient, and we always stay out of slam when the controls are deficient.
(2) The auction is a discussion of controls and suitability. We stay out of slam when the controls are sufficient but neither partner has enough to insist on slam. We occasionally reach slam when the controls are deficient but one partner has enough to insist on slam.

I understand why you prefer the certainty of (1) to the ambiguity of (2), but in this sequence where both hands can have a wide range of shapes it seems better to be playing (2).

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2013-August-17, 02:28, said:

That's not true. There are two possible ways to treat this sequence:
(1) The auction is solely a discussion of controls. We always get to slam when the controls are sufficient, and we always stay out of slam when the controls are deficient.
(2) The auction is a discussion of controls and suitability. We stay out of slam when the controls are sufficient but neither partner has enough to insist on slam. We occasionally reach slam when the controls are deficient but one partner has enough to insist on slam.

I understand why you prefer the certainty of (1) to the ambiguity of (2), but in this sequence where both hands can have a wide range of shapes it seems better to be playing (2).

I fully agree with your whole post, except for the last sentence (and the first ). Opener has accurately limited his hand in strength and distribution (18-19 hcp 2=4=4=3, 3=4=4=2, 4=4=3=2 or 2=4=5=2). That makes it clear that responder has decided to go to slam... unless there is a problem with the controls. Suitability doesn't come into play because responder has already decided that the hands were suitable for slam.

When both hands are unlimited then suitability should also be investigated (your approach 2). In an uncontested auction it should not be necessary to start doing that at the five level, though.

Rik

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2013-August-17, 12:14, said:

I fully agree with your whole post, except for the last sentence (and the first ). Opener has accurately limited his hand in strength and distribution (18-19 hcp 2=4=4=3, 3=4=4=2, 4=4=3=2 or 2=4=5=2). That makes it clear that responder has decided to go to slam... unless there is a problem with the controls. Suitability doesn't come into play because responder has already decided that the hands were suitable for slam.

When both hands are unlimited then suitability should also be investigated (your approach 2).

I agree that he's accurately defined his distribution, but that doesn't help much when you're investigating slam (or anything else, in fact). What would help would be if he had precisely defined his distribution. A definition that varies from "4=4=3=2 and worth game" to "2=4=5=2 and worth game" isn't precise enough for investigating slam.

Quote

In an uncontested auction it should not be necessary to start doing that at the five level, though.

Obviously the methods are poor, but we should still try to answer the question that was asked.

[cherdano]

Rik - the number of hands lacking a control in two suits, where you can insist on slam if partner has a control in each of them, but can't use RKCB, seems very small. Much smaller than the number of hands that want to make some sort of invite.
(I could argue that any bid by responder has to be a natural (or otherwise shape-defining) slam try, and that no other method is possible. But I won't.)

[the hog]

Free, on 2013-August-15, 09:22, said:

Passing is beyond my comprehension. Partner needs a ♠ control and perhaps one in ♦ as well, we have both Aces.

I agree with Free; I cannot conceive of passing on this hand. Mike, rkcb is NOT a panacea for all bidding ills.

[Fluffy]

partner could bid 5♦, and since we hold ♥A we would know he has a diamond void. When the reason you bypass 4NT is that you have a void I rather show it than show other control, it is not perfect (nothing is) but IMO is best.

[benlessard]

Quote

partner could bid 5♦, and since we hold ♥A we would know he has a diamond void. When the reason you bypass 4NT is that you have a void I rather show it than show other control, it is not perfect (nothing is) but IMO is best.

I tend to agree with this. IMO if you have a void and have a way to show it many times its the best bid you can do.

Anyway the problem & solution is essentially the same after 5D (showing a void) you either soff in 5H or make a pick a slam 5Nt. Just jumping to 6H is not goood enough.

[RSClyde]

My preference in these situation is to just treat any bid above RKC as exclusion (unless impossible on the auction). Nothing is perfect but if I'm not willing to RKC then it's frequently because I have a void anyway, so I'd rather just formalize the responses and eliminate the guessing.

"So what do you do with xx in a side suit?" If the auction is this high and no one has bid the suit, I key card and live with it. If you're missing, say, AK of clubs and A of hearts, and you choose to cue bid instead of RKC, how do you know that you won't reach slam opposite a club control and be off two aces? You can't protect against both and the defense might miss the AK of clubs, but never 2 aces. And bidding 7 (obviously not on this hand but another) will be damn near impossible without key card.

"What if RKC won't tell you what you need to know?" If I have lots of key cards and just need "stuff" 5 of the major should send that message.

[johnu]

mike777, on 2013-August-14, 23:03, said:

I beg of you partner please stop with these 5 level cuebids or 4 level above kickback, over and over and over again....lets just play rkc, kickback.

You forgot Gerber ...

[Zelandakh]

Trinidad, on 2013-August-17, 00:56, said:

This "artifical method" is forced on you by the lack of bidding room. Other methods are not possible.

One alternative method that certainly is available and clears up many of these cases is to use denial cue bids. Instead of bidding a suit where you have control, you instead bid the suit where you lack a control (or need to know about a specific control and can place the contract or otherwise take control once you find that out). This elimates the requirement for LTTC and is imho much simpler to play for intermediates without detailed agreements.

Incidentally, it is indeed obvious that 5♦ shows a spade control but a matter of agreement as to whether it also shows a diamond control. Of course, the real solution to this would be finding out about the heart fit and extras at the 3 level. That ought to be easy if South opens a strong 1♣ or even a nebulous 1♣ with transfer responses.