[helene_t]

Yesterday we missed a mediocre slam and got 100% matchpoints for 4♠+3 when the opening lead gave me my 13th trick. So no big deal.

But the incident reminded me that I don't know what advanced players play in response to major suit preempts. I think in response to 3♦ it's common to play 4♣ as a general slam try and other stuff natural.

[Fluffy]

its a cue, only bids with clubs or diamonds are 3NT or 5/6m

[Gerben42]

The cheapest unbid minor on the 4-level asks for Keycards for me. 4NT instead would be the CAB in that minor.

Source: Preempts from A to Z.

[lowerline]

helene_t, on Jul 6 2007, 03:24 AM, said:

Yesterday we missed a mediocre slam and got 100% matchpoints for 4♠+3 when the opening lead gave me my 13th trick. So no big deal.

But the incident reminded me that I don't know what advanced players play in response to major suit preempts. I think in response to 3♦ it's common to play 4♣ as a general slam try and other stuff natural.

4♣ (or 4♦ over 3♣) can be played as a modified keycards ask.
Responses:
step1 = no KCs
step2 = 1 KC w/o Q
step3 = 1 KC w/Q
step4 = 2 KCs w/o Q
step5 = 2 KCs w/Q
(01122)

Steven

[Free]

Fit non jump, obviously showing a cue there, so opener can evaluate his hand.

[kenrexford]

For me, asks to cue if you can. Normally a stiff, but could be and Ace or King. Same thing after:

wk2-P-2NT(ogust)-P-
reply-P-4♣.

I don't understand the cue by Responder concept. Opener won't make the decisions, so why does Responder need to actually have a club card?

The up-side to RKCB is when honor quality is poor in Responder's hand and potentially poor in Responder's. But, that rarely seems to be the problem; the missing side control always seems to be the problem. RKCB rarely if ever solves that problem.

[helene_t]

kenrexford, on Jul 6 2007, 03:54 PM, said:

I don't understand the cue by Responder concept.  Opener won't make the decisions, so why does Responder need to actually have a club card?

That was my thought as well. I could device a cute scheme:
3♠-4♣
?
4♦: diamond control or no control. 4♥ now asks opener to show keycards if he has the diamond control.
4♥: heart control
4♠: club control

[kenrexford]

helene_t, on Jul 6 2007, 09:18 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 6 2007, 03:54 PM, said:

I don't understand the cue by Responder concept.  Opener won't make the decisions, so why does Responder need to actually have a club card?

That was my thought as well. I could device a cute scheme:
3♠-4♣
?
4♦: diamond control or no control. 4♥ now asks opener to show keycards if he has the diamond control.
4♥: heart control
4♠: club control

That's an improvement on what I had seen as a problem -- the need for a 4NT call to show a club control.

If spades are trumps, this works.

If hearts are trumps, you still end up bypassing 4♥ to show a spade control, but you do gain a little with 4♦ as diamonds-or-none, but handling that call is unwieldy.

If diamonds are trumps, you gain nothing, as is the case when clubs are trumps.

It may be complexity that is too overwhelming, but interesting.

[whereagles]

I find that 97% of the time I won't be interested in slam unless pard's pree is solid.

Thus, 4-of-cheapest-minor should be a question like "pard, are you kidding me or not?"

[pclayton]

lowerline, on Jul 6 2007, 01:17 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 6 2007, 03:24 AM, said:

Yesterday we missed a mediocre slam and got 100% matchpoints for 4♠+3 when the opening lead gave me my 13th trick. So no big deal.

But the incident reminded me that I don't know what advanced players play in response to major suit preempts. I think in response to 3♦ it's common to play 4♣ as a general slam try and other stuff natural.

4♣ (or 4♦ over 3♣) can be played as a modified keycards ask.
Responses:
step1 = no KCs
step2 = 1 KC w/o Q
step3 = 1 KC w/Q
step4 = 2 KCs w/o Q
step5 = 2 KCs w/Q
(01122)

Steven

Ditto. By the way, this doesn't come up as much as you'd think.

[nige1]

helene_t, on Jul 6 2007, 03:24 AM, said:

Yesterday we missed a mediocre slam and got 100% matchpoints for 4♠+3 when the opening lead gave me my 13th trick. So no big deal.

But the incident reminded me that I don't know what advanced players play in response to major suit preempts. I think in response to 3♦ it's common to play 4♣ as a general slam try and other stuff natural.

AFIR, over a 4-level major preempt, the Sharples brothers (best bidders the world has known) played something like

• 4N = Ace-asking
  
• Suit bid = Control-asking (I believe that they assumed that when responder envisaged a slam, he should be worried about at most one suit). Without the required control, opener would sign-off. Otherwise he could distinguish between first and second round control or show another feature. I think 5N showed Kx, so they could even right side notrump

AFIR, the Sharples bid the suit below the suit that they were worried about but bidding the suit itself seems to work just as well. This may even encourage opponents to double, giving you more options.

Over lesser pre-empts, I feel that game bids should be natural to play.

Over 3-level pre-empts, you can play a variant of the the asking style above, where a new suit at the 3-level is is often natural but may be a notrump probe. A possible simple reply structure...

• 3N = Stop
  
• 1 suit step = Shortage
  
• 2 suit steps = Denies either of above.

[han]

RKC, 01122 variant.