Asking bid

Last updated

In contract bridge, an asking bid is a convention used to seek a slam accurately. There are two types - suit asking bids and notrump asking bids. Constructed by bridge pioneer Ely Culbertson in the 1940s, they have been superseded by other methods; however, one remaining commonly used asking bid is the 5NT Grand slam force.

Contents

The application of Asking bids requires making distinctions between the asking suit, the agreed trump and the two remaining side suits. Replies by partner are in accordance with a schedule of defined meanings.

Definition

First there has to be an agreed trump suit. The trump agreement can be done explicit as well as implicit. Thereafter the first asking bid has to be either a double jump in a new suit not bid by the partner or the one who puts the asking bid forward, or (without a jump) at the fourth level. After an asking bid, the one who has put the first asking bid forward, will be like the Captain of a ship, and his partner has to reply to the questions. Only bids in the agreed trump can abort a series of asking bids.

Examples: After an opening of 1 ♠, partner's reply 3 ♠ establishes ♠ as trump. (explicit agreement) The bids 4 ♣, 4 ♦ and 4 ♥ are now asking bids. But also after a 1 ♥ opening, any double jump in a new suit is an asking bid, and ♥ agreed trump (implicit agreement). After a 1♥ opening, 3 ♠, 4 ♣ and 4 ♦ are Asking bids. If 4 NT is bid before an asking bid has been put forward this will then be interpreted as Blackwood (or one of its more modern versions). But 4 NT is no longer a matter of the number of Aces, if 4NT follows after an asking bid.

The first asking bid is a question related to first and second controls. It is hence important to understand the definitions of the controls.

Defintition of first and second controls:

Also third controls can be of importance.

What's the significance of an Asking Bid  ? The first asking bid, equals the following question - "Do you have the first control in this suit ? Or if not, do you have the second control in this suit and one (or more) first control(s) in other suit(s) ?"

Another asking bid (in a different suit), has exactly the same significance (but from a different perspective).

Example: West opens 1 ♠, and East holds this hand

♠ Q J 9 7 3
♥ -
♦ A J 10 9
♣ J 6 3 2

1 ♠ - 3 ♠ (explicit trump agreement)
4 ♣ - 4 ♠ (West wishes to get knowledge of East's possible controls, beginning with ♣. East must give a negative reply - trump lowest)
5 ♦ - 5 ♥ (However as West now asks in ♦, with Ace of ♦ East can now reveal the void in ♥)
6 ♠ - pass (A sound conclusion for West, provided the trump Ace and King, the King of ♦ and Ace or King of ♣ sits on West's hand.)

But if repeating the first asking suit, then the second asking bid equals the following question - "Do you (also) have the second control in this suit ? Or if not, do you have an even better control in this suit and one (or more) second control(s) in other suit(s) ?"

Example with the same hand (West opens and East replies):
1 ♠ - 3 ♠ (explicit trump agreement)
4 ♦ - 4 ♥ (West wishes to get knowledge of East's possible controls, beginning with ♦. With Ace of ♦, East can now reveal the void in ♥)
5 ♦ - 5 ♠ (West now asks in ♦ a second time, a repeated asking bid. East now has to have both top cards in ♦ in order to show also a second control ♥. With five trumps that would have been possible otherwise, but 5♥ would now be a lie - due to the lack of King of ♦.)
pass

Further Asking bids If the reply to the first asking bid allows 4 NT to be bid, a 4NT-bid then is asking for the number of Trump-top controls, the Ace, King and Queens of the agreed trump. And partner replies 5 ♣ = I have none of these three cards, 5 ♦ = 1 such card, 5 ♥ = 2 , 5 ♠ = all three. If the bidding has passed 4 NT, this bid can instead be bid as 5 NT. (Which indeed equals the modern Grand slam force). But if this has been possible to bid already, at one level lower, then will 5 NT instead ask for Trump-excess, or the number of trump cards that so far has not been possible to show.

An asking bid in another suit can also follow. Then it's called "a second asking bid". Asking in the same suit twice is called "a repeated asking bid" however. And this is different from a new asking bid.

Example and replies

Example: [1]

Auction:
1♥ - pass - 3♥- pass
4♣ ? - pass - Reply in table below

Asking suit ( ♣ )Trump suit ( ♥ )Side suit ( ♦ & ♠ )Replyin this example
not even 2nd controlinsignificantinsignificantTrump, lowest4♥
With second control in asking suit
2nd without any other 1stnot the Aceno Ace(s)/voidTrump, lowest4♥
Constructive replies
2ndAceno Ace(s)/voidTrump jump5♥
2ndnot the Aceone voidvoid suit4♦ / 4♠
2ndnot the Aceone AceAce suit4♦ / 4♠
2ndAcea voidside suit void4♦ / 4♠
2ndAceone Ace4NT = 2 Aces, always4 NT
2ndnot the Aceone Ace + a voidsuit of the Ace4♦ / 4♠
2ndnot the Aceboth Aces4NT = 2 Aces, always4 NT
2ndAceone Ace + a void4NT = 2 Aces, always4 NT
2ndAceboth Aces5NT = at least 3 Aces, always5 NT
With first control in asking suit
voidnot the Aceno Ace(s)raise asking suit5♣
voidnot the Aceone Aceside suit Ace4♦ / 4♠
voidAceno Ace(s)Trump jump5♥
voidAceone Ace4NT = 2 Aces, always4 NT
voidnot the Aceboth Aces4NT = 2 Aces, always4 NT
voidAceboth Aces5NT = at least 3 Aces, always5 NT
Acenot the Aceno Ace(s)/voidraise asking suit5♣
Acenot the Aceone Ace4NT = 2 Aces, always4 NT
Acenot the Acea voidside suit void4♦ / 4♠
Acenot the Aceone Ace + void4NT = 2 Aces, always4 NT
Acenot the Aceboth Aces5NT = at least 3 Aces, always5 NT
AceAceno Ace(s)/void4NT = 2 Aces, always4 NT
AceAcea void4NT = 2 Aces, always4 NT
AceAceone Ace5NT = at least 3 Aces, always5 NT
AceAceone Ace + void5NT = at least 3 Aces, always5 NT
AceAceboth Aces5NT = at least 3 Aces, always5 NT

Hands with two voids are not taken in consideration. Presumably not by Culbertson, certainly not in the source.

The basic principles are -

  1. Without even the second control in the asking suit, reply negatively - logically trump at lowest level. This applies completely to the situation in the trump and side colors.
  2. Also with a second control in the asking suit, but no other first control, reply negatively - logically trump at lowest level.
  3. If the requirements of either a first control in the asking suit - or at least a second control in the asking suit combined with one or more first controls in Trump and the side suits are met, then reply constructively.

The constructive replies:

  1. With just one first control, this should be shown. Question suit raise, trump raise or a bid in the side suits. (Do not forget to have at least the second control in the asking suit - without a such, constructive bids are not permitted.)
  2. With more than one first control, the side suits comes first. Unless there totally are two Aces (or more) on the replier's hand.
  3. 4 NT always means exactly two Aces (with or without a void)
  4. 5 NT always means at least three Aces (with or without a void)

Tactics When a slam seems possible, and especially when this depends on partner's controls in a certain suit, then asking bids may well be the road to follow. If asking in a suit in which you have either the Ace or the King, you may get splendid excess information.

Applicability

Asking bids, although developed for the Culbertson bidding system, which today largely has become obsolete, can be used in combination with most natural bidding system, such as Acol, Five Card Major and others. Like Blackwood and Cue bids, Asking bids are Slam-seeking.

It is indeed possible to use Asking bids together with (most variants of) Blackwood, even in one and the same deal. [2] But Asking bids can never be used in combination with Cue bids, as they can't be distinguished from each other.

The advantages of Asking bids increase especially if used together with Culbertson's 4 and 5 NT conventions. Here the rules are very clear:

"If a series of questions begin with 4 NT, then that specific bid is Blackwood. But if the first question has been a bid in a new suit (not earlier bid by the couple), then the 4 NT instead asks for the partner's trump top quality." [3] The 4 NT bid is then asking for the number of top three trumps (Ace, King and Queen), then a later 5 NT bid, asks for additional trump length. Whilst a 5 NT bid not preceded by any 4 NT bid, equals the Grand slam force convention.

After a first Asking bid (with reply from partner), then the 4 NT bid asks for "trump top quality". (Replies from partner - 5♣ = not any of the Ace, King or Queen in the agreed trump. 5♦ = one of the three top trump cards, and 5♥ = two of them. The one who bids 4 NT must have at least one of top three trumps on his own hand). If 4 NT (at once or a round later) is followed by 5 NT, then that bid asks for "trump length". Here the replies are based on what's the minimum number of cards for a usual trump agreement length. Replies - 6 ♣ = no extra trump card; 6 ♦ = one more; 6 ♥ = two more.

When preceded by the "non-Blackwood" 4 NT trump top quality bid, any thereafter following 5 NT bid must be understood as "Any additional, not yet shown trump cards ?", which isn't equal to the 5 NT Grand slam force.

If using Asking bids, the player who first put an Asking bid forward, must thereafter be "the Captain" of the couple for the remaining part of the auction. The partner has to rather take on the role of a private soldier, and stick to giving correct answers to what very well may become a series of questions. This isn't limited to always be the opener (or the first overcaller), but is often the case. Cue bids are from that perspective different.

And it has to be added that Cue bids today more or less has put the Asking bids to history. But Culbertson's 5 NT Grand slam force is still in use.

Full auction example

Here West has 13 HCP and East only 5 HCP, a total of just 18 (and thereby 22 HCP to North/South). If adding distribution points to both hands, West and East would according to most such calculations still be a little short of the required points for a game even (25-26 Distribution and HCP is normally needed for a 4 ♠ contract)! But not everything can be measured in numbers - and a Grand slam in ♠ really is the correct contract below - and must be considered to be safe regardless of the remaining distribution and the opponents' lead.

Both North and South are silent during the auction. Provided West begins to speak in the auction, only a wrench distribution in North's favor would disturb this bidding. A doubling of the opening bid could be disregarded from by East. It is however a constructed example, made in order to show the benefits of Asking bids in combination with Culbertson's 4-5 NT combination. [4]

♠A K Q 8 6 2

W             E

♠10 9 7 4 3
♥6 4 2♥
♦A 8 7 4♦K Q 
♣♣10 7 5 4 3 2
WestEast
1 ♠3 ♠
4 ♦4 ♥
4 NT5 ♣
5 ♦5 ♥
5 NT6 ♥
7 ♠(pass)

After West's opening, East confirms ♠ as trump. As West has ♦A , the 4 ♦ Asking bid is looking for second control and any possible first control(s). East now can show his void in ♥, as he has the second control in ♦. Now West wishes to know whether East has any of the three top trump cards, which may seem a bit awkward given all three top trumps are on West's hand, but this bid later enables the 5 NT-bid to be a trump length issue (compare with the significance of 5 NT as Grand slam force). Hence East's reply 5 ♣ is no surprise to West, who now with 5 ♦(a repeated Asking bid) wonder if East also has the third control in ♦. And the King - Queen is indeed both a second and a third control (but not a first) - and as East's void in ♥ is "covered" with five trumps, East can now declare also his third control in ♥. Now West finally wishes to be certain of a really good trump support - 5 NT. And (in this example) East's 6 ♥ shows two more trump cards than his/her 3 ♠ reply to West's opening earlier has shown. And it's now easy for West to determine the final bid, a 7 ♠ Grand slam contract.

The example is a splendid illustration the significance of distribution combined with the difficulty to find Grand slams especially, even when they are easy to see - on 26 cards. As well of how Asking bids combined with not just trump top, but trump length, can be of great help.

History

Asking bids were invented by one of the original pioneers of contract bridge, Ely Culbertson, [1] [5] but were later removed from Culbertson's system in favour of Cue bids and other slam seeking conventions. But they can co-exist with some other slam seeking conventions, such as most variants of Blackwood, in the sense that both can exist - but only one of them at a time. Culbertson's Asking Bids can be combined with other bidding system, such as Acol and Five-card majors, although originally designed for Culbertson's own system. The idea gained favour with the Italian Blue Team from the late fifties onwards, and was subsequently adopted in Precision Club and its variants, such as Power Precision.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Contract bridge</span> Card game

Contract bridge, or simply bridge, is a trick-taking card game using a standard 52-card deck. In its basic format, it is played by four players in two competing partnerships, with partners sitting opposite each other around a table. Millions of people play bridge worldwide in clubs, tournaments, online and with friends at home, making it one of the world's most popular card games, particularly among seniors. The World Bridge Federation (WBF) is the governing body for international competitive bridge, with numerous other bodies governing it at the regional level.

In the partnership card game contract bridge, the Blackwood convention is a bidding convention developed by Easley Blackwood in 1933 and still widely used in the modern game. Its purpose is to enable the partnership to explore its possession of aces, kings and in some variants, the queen of trumps to judge whether a slam would be a feasible contract. The essence of the convention is the use of an artificial 4NT bid made under certain conditions to ask partner how many aces he has; responses by partner are made in step-wise fashion to indicate the number held.

Stayman is a bidding convention in the card game contract bridge. It is used by a partnership to find a 4-4 or 5-3 trump fit in a major suit after making a one notrump (1NT) opening bid and it has been adapted for use after a 2NT opening, a 1NT overcall, and many other natural notrump bids.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">500 (card game)</span> Trick-taking card game

500 or Five Hundred is a trick-taking game developed in the United States from Euchre. Euchre was extended to a 10 card game with bidding and a Misère contract similar to Russian Preference, producing a cutthroat three-player game like Preference and a four-player game played in partnerships like Whist which is the most popular modern form, although with special packs it can be played by up to six players.

Acol is the bridge bidding system that, according to The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, is "standard in British tournament play and widely used in other parts of the world". It is a natural system using four-card majors and, most commonly, a weak no trump.

Polish Club is a bridge bidding system which was developed in Poland, where it is the most popular bidding system, and which is also used by players of other countries. It is a type of small club system.

A game try in the card game of bridge is a bid that shows interest in bidding a game and asks partner to help in making the decision.

Zar Points (ZP) is a statistically derived method for evaluating contract bridge hands developed by Zar Petkov. The statistical research Petkov conducted in the areas of hand evaluation and bidding is useful to bridge players, regardless of their bidding or hand evaluation system. The research showed that the Milton Work point count method, even when adjusted for distribution, is not sufficiently accurate in evaluating all hands. As a result, players often make incorrect or sub-optimal bids. Zar Points are designed to take many additional factors into consideration by assigning points to each factor based on statistical weight. While most of these factors are already implicitly taken into account by experienced players, Zar Points provides a quantitative method that allows them to be incorporated into bidding.

These terms are used in contract bridge, using duplicate or rubber scoring. Some of them are also used in whist, bid whist, the obsolete game auction bridge, and other trick-taking games. This glossary supplements the Glossary of card game terms.

In contract bridge, various bidding systems have been devised to enable partners to describe their hands so that they may reach the optimum contract. Key to this process is that players evaluate and re-evaluate the trick-taking potential of their hands as the auction proceeds and additional information about partner's hand and the opponent's hands becomes available.

Bridge bidding systems that incorporate a strong 2 clubs opening bid include modern Standard American, standard Acol, 2/1 game forcing and many others.

Slam-seeking conventions are codified artificial bids used in the card game contract bridge. Bidding and making a small slam or grand slam yields high bonuses ranging from 500 to 1500 points. However, the risk is also high as failure to fulfill the slam contract also means failure to score the bonus points for a game (300-500). Conventions have been devised to maximise the opportunity for success whilst minimising the risk of failure.

Gerber is a contract bridge convention devised by William Konigsberger and Win Nye from Switzerland who published it in 1936; John Gerber of Texas introduced it to North America in 1938 where it was named after him. It is similar to Blackwood but uses 4♣ instead of 4NT as a relay (asking) bid to inquire about the number of aces held by partner. A further relay bid may follow to inquire about the number of kings held.

In contract bridge, a cue bid is either a bid of the opponents' suit, or "slam seeking": a slam-investigating bid made during an auction's later rounds that shows control of a suit.

The Useful Space Principle, or USP, in the game of contract bridge was first articulated in a series of six articles in The Bridge World, published from November 1980 through April 1981. The USP is expressed succinctly in The Bridge World glossary as "a partnership's assigning meanings to actions so that the remaining bidding space matches the needs of the auction."

A forcing defense in contract bridge aims to force declarer to repeatedly ruff the defenders' leads. If this can be done often enough, declarer eventually runs out of trumps and may lose control of the hand. A forcing defense is therefore applicable only to contracts played in a trump suit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Konter a Matt</span> Four-player card game of Luxembourg

Konter a Matt, Kontra a Matt or Konter a Midd is a Luxembourgish trick-taking card game played by four players. The game is popular enough to have been televised on RTL, Luxembourg's leading TV station and for tournaments to be organised. Konter a Matt is one of a family of similar games, known as the Couillon Group, played in the Benelux area. Other games in the family include the Belgian game of Couillon, known as Kwajongen in Flemish areas and Kujong in Luxembourg, the Dutch game of Troeven and the Belgian games of Brûte and Gamelle.

Rex Bridge is a version of contract bridge developed in Sweden in 1959 by Sten Lundberg. It gained some followers in Scandinavia but few elsewhere.

Maw, formerly also mawe, was a Scottish card game for two players, popularised by James I, which is ancestral to the Irish national game of Twenty-five as well as the Canadian game of Forty-fives. Maw appears to be the same as five cards, a game described by Charles Cotton in the 17th century. The game disappeared from the literature after the period of the English Commonwealth, only to emerge in Ireland in the 19th century in new forms for two or more players and known as five and ten, spoil five and forty-five. These new variants are still played today, the latter has evolved into the Canadian game of forty-fives.

Within contract bridge a stolen bid is a bid which usually lacks connection to the bidders own hand, and instead is used for blocking a certain bid to be expressed from the next opponent. To "steal a bid" is mainly done when the opponent to the right has given a conventional bid which the opponent to the left is likely to reply to. By far, most stolen bids are related to the Stayman convention. But also other conventions where some kind of reply is expected, the "reply range" can at least in theory be stolen. Blackwood is another example of a convention that might be exposed to a stolen bid.

References

  1. 1 2 Werner, Einar; Sandgren, Tore (1983). Kortoxen (in Swedish) (2nd ed.). pp. 209–211. ISBN   9789137082660.
  2. ↑ Hermansson, Hasse; Stenberg, Alvar (1960). Bridge (in Swedish) (1st ed.). Malmö: Svensk Bridgelitteratur. p. 450.
  3. ↑ "Bridge", p. 133-135
  4. ↑ Example and comments are taken from "Bridge", p.134 (author on these pages: Frithiof von Barth)
  5. ↑ "Bridge" p133-135
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.