[nige1]

TheoKole, on Sep 27 2010, 07:10 AM, said:

Hello everyone. I don't know if anyone else uses this bid but I use 3NT opener with my regular partner to ask for specific Aces. Around 4 or 5 times a year I have a hand like
♠ AKQJxxxx  ♥- ♦ AK ♣ xx
or something similar with a void in 1 suit.
Asking for Aces doesn't really work, what do I do if partner has the wrong Ace? Also I may not even be able to get to it even if the defenders lead the wrong suit for them to set me right away.
Any hand that is almost safe at the 5 level that can envision a small or grand slam opposite a single Ace would probably open 3NT, almost always it would be with a void
Here is how it works, after a 3NT opener, partner bids the suit of his Ace if he has one, he bids 4NT without an Ace, if there is interference by the second hand player, a double by partner promises the Ace of that suit, a bid by him promises the Ace of the suit and denies the Ace in the ops suit. A pass by him denies an Ace.
If the bidding goes 3NT - 4NT - any bid by opener is to play.
If it goes something like 3NT - P - 4 ♦ - P, then 4 NT asks what other Ace in the higher suits or King partner has in the lower suits.
Please comment on the system and any helpful suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.

• I agree that the traditional 3N = solid minor is daft. When 3N is the right contract, the wrong hand plays it.
• I play 3N = solid major or semi-solid with an outside A.
• I like your 3N bid = ask for specific Aces, too. (Although suitable hands are rare and, arguably, you can cater for such hands by opening 2♣ then jumping in your suit to set it as trumps and demand cue-bids).

Anyway, This specific ace ask suggestion

• Uses hard to remember "denial" cue-bids but
• Keeps the bidding low enough to cater for "wrong" aces and
• Caters for a few more hand types
• e.g. ♠ AKQ ♥- ♦ KQJ ♣ KQJTxxx
  e.g. ♠ KQJTxx ♥- ♦- ♣ KQJTxxx
  e.g. ♠- ♥ JT9xxxxx ♦ AKQJ ♣ A

3N - ??

• 4♣ = Zero or two aces. Then 4♦ asks which?
• 4♦ = A minor Ace. Then 4N asks which?
• 4♥ = ♠A only.
• 4♠ = ♥A only.
• 4N = Four aces.
• 5♣/5♦/5♥/5♠ = Three aces but not in the bid suit.

3N - 4♣ -
??

• 4♦ = Do you have two aces?
• 4♥/4♠/5♣/5♦... = Natural non-forcing but asking for top honours by steps.
  e.g. rebid 4♠ with ♠ JT98xxxx ♥ - ♦ AKQJ ♣ A

3N - 4♦ -
4N - ??

• 5♣ = ♦A.
• 5♦ = ♣A.

3N - 4♣ -
4♦ - ??

• 4♥ = Sorry zero.
• 4♠ = Two aces. Denies ♠ ace. Then 4N asks "other ace-less suit?"
• 4N = Major aces (in case opener needs minor aces).
• 5♣ = Pointy aces (in case opener needs round suit aces).
• 5♦ = Black aces (in case opener needs red aces).

3N - 4♣ -
4♦ - 4♠ -
4N - ??

• 5♣ = Red aces (Denies ♣A).
• 5♦ = Round aces (Denies ♦A).
• 5♥ = Minor aces (Denies ♥A).

3N - 4♣/4♦ -
4♠ - ??
??

• _P = No ♠ honour.
• 4N (1 step) = ♠ Q.
• 5♣ (2 steps) = ♠ A or ♠ K
• 5♦ (3 steps) = ♠ AQ or ♠ KQ.
• 5♥ (4 steps) = ♠ AK
• 5♠ (5 steps) = ♠ AKQ.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on Oct 12 2010, 06:34 PM, said:

Anyway, suggestions using denial cue-bids...

I'm having a great deal of trouble making the linkage between this scheme and (my understanding of) denial cue bidding...

[nige1]

nige1, on Oct 12 2010, 06:34 PM, said:

Anyway,  suggestions using denial cue-bids...

hrothgar, on Oct 12 2010, 10:58 AM, said:

I'm having a great deal of trouble making the linkage between this scheme and (my understanding of) denial cue bidding...

I just meant that (with the possible exception of 4♦) you cue-bid aces that you don't have

[hrothgar]

nige1, on Oct 12 2010, 07:10 PM, said:

nige1, on Oct 12 2010, 06:34 PM, said:

Anyway,  suggestions using denial cue-bids...

hrothgar, on Oct 12 2010, 10:58 AM, said:

I'm having a great deal of trouble making the linkage between this scheme and (my understanding of) denial cue bidding...

I just meant that (with the possible exception of 4♦) you cue-bid aces that you don't have

IMHO, this use of the expression denial cue bidding is far from standard...

I've understood denial cue bidding (aka Spiral Scan) as describing a system in which

1. You establish an order in which suits are to be scanned

2. Skipping a step promises 1-2 controls in the corresponding suit. Stopping shows either no controls in the corresponding suit or complete control of the corresponding suit.

3. If you skip a suit, you automatically continue to scan the next suit in the sequence.

[nige1]

hrothgar, on Oct 12 2010, 11:41 AM, said:

IMHO, this use of the expression denial cue bidding is far from standard...
I've understood denial cue bidding (aka Spiral Scan) as describing a system in which
1.  You establish an order in which suits are to be scanned
2.  Skipping a step promises 1-2 controls in the corresponding suit.  Stopping shows either no controls in the corresponding suit or complete control of the corresponding suit.
3.  If you skip a suit, you automatically continue to scan the next suit in the sequence.

Thank you Hrothgar. I stand corrected
In future, I'll try to choose my words more carefully

[Mbodell]

If you use 3nt for specific ace ask, then you can use the 5 level to show 2 specific aces. The person should not be afraid of getting too high since if you use specific ace ask and your partner has 2 or more aces you should be off to the races. Iirc we use 4♣ means no ace, 4♦-4nt means specific ace (nt for clubs), 5♣-5♠ shows 2 touching aces (the suit bid and one higher, wrapping aroung so ♠ is ♠+♣), 5nt is 2 non-touching, and in theory 6♣ shows 3 aces.

On a hand like AKQJxxxxx xx AK - it would be silly for the auction to go:

3nt - P - 4♣ (specific club A) - 6♣ (sac)
???

when now you still don't know did partner have the heart A? If partner can show both A at once you are better placed.

[nige1]

Mbodell, on 2010-October-13, 00:26, said:

If you use 3nt for specific ace ask, then you can use the 5 level to show 2 specific aces. The person should not be afraid of getting too high since if you use specific ace ask and your partner has 2 or more aces you should be off to the races. Iirc we use 4♣ means no ace, 4♦-4nt means specific ace (nt for clubs), 5♣-5♠ shows 2 touching aces (the suit bid and one higher, wrapping aroung so ♠ is ♠+♣), 5nt is 2 non-touching, and in theory 6♣ shows 3 aces.

On a hand like AKQJxxxxx xx AK - it would be silly for the auction to go:

3nt - P - 4♣ (specific club A) - 6♣ (sac)
???

when now you still don't know did partner have the heart A? If partner can show both A at once you are better placed.

Yes, unfortunately, opponents are quite likely to get in the way and make life difficult

Mbodell, using your methods, suppose you deal yourself ♠- ♥ K Q J T 9 ♦ K Q J T 9 8 7 6 5 ♣- , where do you go after 3N - 5♠ - ??

[Mbodell]

nige1, on 2013-April-10, 14:48, said:

Yes, unfortunately, opponents are quite likely to get in the way and make life difficult

Mbodell, using your methods, suppose you deal yourself ♠- ♥ K Q J T 9 ♦ K Q J T 9 8 7 6 5 ♣- , where do you go after 3N - 5♠ - ??

Down. Obviously you can't use it if you can't tolerate all the answers.

[Zelandakh]

Nigel's hand illustrates (somewhat) why it is better to bid a suit where you do not have an ace if you use specific 2 ace responses, and why you should really hold an ace in your own hand. Mbodell's auction shows why it is important not to forget the responses! (3NT - 4♣ = no ace). Notice on this hand that standard responses will do the job just fine: 3NT - 4NT = ♣A only; 3NT - 5♣ = any 2 aces. In the denial scheme suggested, the auction would be 3NT - 5♦ (showing ♣A and a major suit ace). On Nigel's hand the auction also starts 3NT - 5♦ but now you have no idea what to do next. That makes the hand unsuitable for a specific ace ask opening (but perfect for relaying out partner's hand).

[CamHenry]

It's traditional in Acol to use 4NT as the specific ace ask. That obviously takes up one more level, and responses are 5♣ - no aces; 5X/6♣ - that ace; 5NT - two aces. I prefer an improved version:

Opening 4NT asks for aces. Responses are:

•5♣—no aces
•5♦—ace of ♣ or aces of ♦, ♥ & ♠
•5♥—ace of ♦ or aces of ♣, ♥ & ♠
•5♠—ace of ♥ or aces of ♣, ♦ & ♠
•5N—two other aces
•6♣—ace of ♠ or aces of ♣, ♦ & ♥
•6♦—ace of ♠ & ♣
•6♥—ace of ♠ &♦
•6♠—ace of ♠ &♥

Each bid shows the ace in the suit below or all other aces; 6♦ upwards are ♠A plus the suit below. 5NT is "two aces outside spades".

Obviously if using 3NT as the opening, you can move everything down a level.

[nige1]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-11, 01:49, said:

Nigel's hand illustrates (somewhat) why it is better to bid a suit where you do not have an ace if you use specific 2 ace responses, and why you should really hold an ace in your own hand. Mbodell's auction shows why it is important not to forget the responses! (3NT - 4♣ = no ace). Notice on this hand that standard responses will do the job just fine: 3NT - 4NT = ♣A only; 3NT - 5♣ = any 2 aces. In the denial scheme suggested, the auction would be 3NT - 5♦ (showing ♣A and a major suit ace). On Nigel's hand the auction also starts 3NT - 5♦ but now you have no idea what to do next. That makes the hand unsuitable for a specific ace ask opening (but perfect for relaying out partner's hand).

An efficient specific-ace ask may facilitate accurate slam-auctions but hands suitable for such methods are rare, Arguably, we should save our time and memory for other aspects of bidding. Hence I'm unsure if what i suggest is worth the candle -- although IMO, it handles more kinds of hand than others. I quite like CamHenry's ideas, especially starting with 3N. I agree with MBodell about the likelihood of interference and how vulnerable we are to it. Hence, I doubt that Zelandakh's relay approach would work in practice.

[CamHenry]

nige1, on 2013-April-11, 10:42, said:

An efficient specific-ace ask may facilitate accurate slam-auctions but hands suitable for such methods are rare, Arguably, we should save our time and memory for other aspects of bidding. Hence I'm unsure if what i suggest is worth the candle -- although IMO, it handles more kinds of hand than others. I quite like CamHenry's ideas, especially ztarting with 3N. I agree with MBodell about the likelihood of interference and how vulnerable you are to it. Hence, I doubt that Zelandakh's relay approach would work in practice.

For what it's worth, I've looked in our system notes and it was actually campboy who came up with this idea.