[kenrexford]

1NT(15-17)-3♣(puppet)
3♦(no 5-card but at least one 4-card)-5NT(?)

I bid 5NT, which ended up with a specific reaction that may have been the right end decision but resulted in a poor score. The other three at the table had no idea what 5NT meant.

FWIW, the scoring was teams. I had the option of bidding 4♣ or 4♦ instead, either of which would be natural but typically unbalanced (5431, for example). I also had the option in a different sequence of showing specifically 3244/2344 and slammish (describing which doubleton major and which 3-card major).

[gwnn]

(03)55

or

quantitative to 7NT.

of course the two hands are not exactly the same but as opener I'd have bid my better minor as a safety play.

[helene_t]

Not sure what it means in the Ken Rexford system but normally it would be quanty if nothing else is agreed.

[gnasher]

I agree with Ken's partner and opponents.

[pclayton]

5N should be invitational to 7N. I would expect a 4 card major. Contrast this to over a 1N - transfer - accept - 5N which should be choose between 6M and 6N.

I don't know what you had, but a (32)44 goes through 4♠. Over 4N (slam rejection) you can bid your 3 card fragment is you are trying to back into a 5-3 or good 4-3.

If pard is a max and accepting, he can bid a 5 card major himself.

[peachy]

kenrexford, on Oct 19 2008, 03:46 PM, said:

1NT(15-17)-3♣(puppet)
3♦(no 5-card but at least one 4-card)-5NT(?)

I bid 5NT, which ended up with a specific reaction that may have been the right end decision but resulted in a poor score. The other three at the table had no idea what 5NT meant.

FWIW, the scoring was teams. I had the option of bidding 4♣ or 4♦ instead, either of which would be natural but typically unbalanced (5431, for example). I also had the option in a different sequence of showing specifically 3244/2344 and slammish (describing which doubleton major and which 3-card major).

Just a note that if 3C was Puppet, 3D showed one or both, then 4C and 4D are not natural; they are artificial bids, showing both majors, one a slam invite the other with no slam interest and asking opener to pick the suit. At least this is the way I have played Puppet for "decades". Of course other methods are possible, but perhaps those methods should have another name because IMO it is not Puppet any more.

[han]

4 hearts, longer clubs, mildly invitational to 7.

[kenrexford]

Because two people felt it necessary to correct what I had put forward as pre-conditions, I will explain again.

1. 4minor was agreed as natural, slammish. Not some kind of flag.
2. With 3244/2344, you would not bid 4♠. You would initially bid 2NT as a relay to 3♣, and then bid your doubleton major. This was also agreed.

[MFA]

4-4 majors, please bid your major, I want it on your hand?

Hmm seriously, if partner doesn't know what 5NT is, then I disagree with the bid no matter my hand.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Oct 20 2008, 01:37 PM, said:

Because two people felt it necessary to correct what I had put forward as pre-conditions, I will explain again.

Yes, it does seem odd that anyone should think they know more about your system than you do, especially given all the evidence we've seen of its exotic nature.

[FrancesHinden]

Slightly worryingly, I have an agreement about a similar (ish) auction to this in one partnership, which is that it is invitational to a grand with 4=4 in the minors. But as you have now told us you have another way to show 4-4 in the minors, it can't be that.

Thus I'm left with the 'boring' answer which is that it is the same as 1NT - 5NT i.e. invitational to 7NT, forcing 6NT, but now opener evaluates their hand on the basis that they have already denied a 5-card suit.

It also must have a hand type that you can't otherwise show, but we don't know all your system. If you are 4-4 major/minor, surely you have some way to show this? That leave 3=3=(4=3).

[ASkolnick]

Depends on what 3H/3S means, I would most likely guess a (31)(54) pattern with between small slam-grand slam values. If he had both minors, he could transfer to one or bid another or make a 2 suited bid.

[Apollo81]

gwnn, on Oct 19 2008, 05:41 PM, said:

(03)55

or

quantitative to 7NT.

of course the two hands are not exactly the same but as opener I'd have bid my better minor as a safety play.

I would interpret it as quantitative to 7NT, but I would accept it conservatively and would indeed bid 6m as a safety play on many hands.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Oct 20 2008, 04:37 AM, said:

Because two people felt it necessary to correct what I had put forward as pre-conditions, I will explain again.

1. 4minor was agreed as natural, slammish. Not some kind of flag.
2. With 3244/2344, you would not bid 4♠. You would initially bid 2NT as a relay to 3♣, and then bid your doubleton major. This was also agreed.

No one corrected your pre-conditions Ken.

We (in this case I) simply said that this is how I would have bid a hand with 4-4 in the minors (i.e., 4♠). If 'you' (as you stated in the OP) have a different way to bid a hand with 4-4 in the minors, more power to you. It makes no difference; the relevance is there is already a way to show a hand with 4-4 in the minors, so 5N is not needed for pick-a-minor.

[kenrexford]

The responses surprise me.

I thought (obviously wrong) that this was a fairly common situation.

As to the idea of a quantitative raise to 7NT, I cannot imagine a bid of a grand on mere supposed power at IMP scoring. I think I'd be shunned for life for that sort of B.S.

So, it seems to me that this was a forcing raise to 6NT that allowed partner to reconsider one (or both) minors. If the precondition at this point was that he had to have at least one four-card major, then his only interesting pattern would be 4432. Hence, I thought 5NT asked partner to bid a 4-card minor if he has one (of interest). If not, he should just bid 6NT. What I have is irrelevant, but I must logically have one or both minors.

The table thought that 5NT was "quantitative, but really strongly invitational."

As it was, I had a hand where either meaning was OK by me, as I was, in fact, somewhat tweenish. ♠Axx ♥Axx ♦Qx ♣AQxxx. So, it worked out in the end, sort of. As it was, partner had a (aggressively) upgraded hand that he appropriately opted to show as 15 and accordingly passed wisely, but all things worked well, resulting in the heavily unfavorable slam to make (bid at the other table).

I was curious, though, how others played 5NT.

[TimG]

kenrexford, on Oct 21 2008, 02:05 PM, said:

So, it seems to me that this was a forcing raise to 6NT that allowed partner to reconsider one (or both) minors.

As it was, partner had a (aggressively) upgraded hand that he appropriately opted to show as 15 and accordingly passed wisely, but all things worked well, resulting in the heavily unfavorable slam to make (bid at the other table).

I don't think it is wise to pass a forcing bid because you've upgraded and are having second thoughts; either it's worth 15 or it's not, and once you've decided you need to stick with that.

[kenrexford]

TimG, on Oct 21 2008, 02:36 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Oct 21 2008, 02:05 PM, said:

So, it seems to me that this was a forcing raise to 6NT that allowed partner to reconsider one (or both) minors.

As it was, partner had a (aggressively) upgraded hand that he appropriately opted to show as 15 and accordingly passed wisely, but all things worked well, resulting in the heavily unfavorable slam to make (bid at the other table).

I don't think it is wise to pass a forcing bid because you've upgraded and are having second thoughts; either it's worth 15 or it's not, and once you've decided you need to stick with that.

I meant that partner passed wisely because he took 5NT as "very highly invitational," as per the table understanding of the bid.

[cherdano]

I see. We don't bid 7N slams on power at IMPs, but we need a highly invitational bid that lets us stop in 5N rather than 6N. Got it.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Oct 21 2008, 11:19 PM, said:

I see. We don't bid 7N slams on power at IMPs, but we need a highly invitational bid that lets us stop in 5N rather than 6N. Got it.

I'm not saying that the table meaning made sense. I thought 5NT was 100% forcing but allowed us to consider a back-in 6♣. I agree that the table meaning seems strange.

[han]

How about bidding 4C with that hand?