[JLOGIC]

per. agreement.

[cherdano]

 jillybean, on 2013-January-08, 17:47, said:

No, I said I thought it was better to start to show the 6th heart because I downgraded my hand due to the ♦ void.
All 2♥ promises is 5+. When I bid 3♠/3♦ this is what indicates that I have 6♥/4♠ otherwise I would have supported partners minor or bid nt.

You hold KQx AQxxxx xx xx. Your bid after 1H 2D 2H 3D. Wouldn't we all bid 3♠?

[aguahombre]

It seems as if, in the OP case we still have a problem in defining shape ---even if we rebid 2S (with which I agree). The problem would be caused by responder's rebid:

1H-2D
2S-3D
3H.....Does 3H show 6 of them? I don't think so, and with responder's club holding, it is even more likely that 3H is just a stall.

However, if responder does the stalling over 2S:

1H-2D
2S-2N
3H....now the 4-6 is clear, and we can proceed toward the good slam.

[aguahombre]

 cherdano, on 2013-January-09, 11:00, said:

You hold KQx AQxxxx xx xx. Your bid after 1H 2D 2H 3D. Wouldn't we all bid 3♠?

Yes, but here we would have shown neither 6 hearts nor 4 spades, possibly KQX AQXXX X XXX. I don't have a solution to that dilemma, because with either your shape or mine the auction must be the same. Maybe someone could make a recommendation on that, other than "oh, well, live with it".

[RSClyde]

I don't understand not bidding 3nt over 3♦. I would not think that spades is a suit here. In my view I've shown 6 hearts and partner has denied spades via bypassing them and I'm anxious to shut this down. As long as the majors are clear at this point, where else would we want to go?

[jillybean]

 RSClyde, on 2013-January-10, 19:19, said:

I don't understand not bidding 3nt over 3♦. I would not think that spades is a suit here. In my view I've shown 6 hearts and partner has denied spades via bypassing them and I'm anxious to shut this down. As long as the majors are clear at this point, where else would we want to go?

2♥ did not show 6 and I'm not anxious to shut down the bidding, I am not ashamed of my hand.

btw, off topic - I did some "bbf 3nt bidding" in a team game tonight and my partner and I won the match for our
team, thanks also to a fantastic (P)2H (P) 6N hand

No hand records so I can't post the actual hands.

[RSClyde]

 jillybean, on 2013-January-11, 02:38, said:

2♥ did not show 6 and I'm not anxious to shut down the bidding, I am not ashamed of my hand.

btw, off topic - I did some "bbf 3nt bidding" in a team game tonight and my partner and I won the match for our
team, thanks also to a fantastic (P)2H (P) 6N hand

I understand that some people play that (I don't understand why but forget that). Like I said "in my view I've shown 6 hearts", maybe I should have said "with my partner". I don't think this is good hand at all. I did, until I found out that all partner wanted to do was bid diamonds.

[kenberg]

 RSClyde, on 2013-January-11, 05:10, said:

I understand that some people play that (I don't understand why but forget that). Like I said "in my view I've shown 6 hearts", maybe I should have said "with my partner". I don't think this is good hand at all. I did, until I found out that all partner wanted to do was bid diamonds.

Since the original Q about the 4♣ call has probably run its course, let me take a minute to say something about the promise of six cards.

First, just as authorities go, I that it is pretty easy to find quite a few on either side of the issue. If i am not mistaken, Marty Bergen thinks it shows six, Mike Lawrence thinks it does not. I believe that an expert poll would go with the nots, but I am not certain. I think that the votes would change if we discussed 1♠-2♣-2♠. Here one can reason that partner did not support clubs, did not bid a red suit, and did not rebid 2NT, any of which can be done at the 2 level. Presumably he has six spades. The 1♥-2♦ auction leaves less room. Lawrence at least suggests ( he says it is worth considering) that 1♥-2♦-3♣ shows 5-5. I am pretty sure that this is on his CD on 2/1. I'll check this.

What you get for allowing a rebid of 2♥ on five cards is greater clarity when you do not rebid 2♥. If the 2♥ bid unequivocally shows six, then whenever you do not have six you have to do something else, and at least sometimes the choices will be unappealing. If, for example, over 2♦ you rebid 2NT, and if you could have bid a no extras 2♠ or 3♣ with four, then it is true that partner pretty much knows your shape. But you also may have KQx in one black suit and xxx in the other. I would rebid 2♥ with that hand. Similarly, if i have Qxxx in spades and a minimum hand, I rebid 2♥ and wait for partner to bid the spades if he has them.

If one way or the other were clearly superior we would all be doing it. Those who regularly play at a higher level than I do can perhaps say which approach is most in vogue. But I have played both ways and I prefer that 2♥ not promise six.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 kenberg, on 2013-January-11, 08:31, said:

...... let me take a minute to say something about the promise of six cards.

My take on that when a direct 2S shows "extras" :

South
1H - 2D! ( 2/1 GF )
2S - 2NT! ( "asks distribution" much like in a Flannery auction )
??
... 3C = 4 5 3 1
... 3D = 4 5 1 3
... 3H = 4 6 ( shortness somewhere ) >> 3S! asks where
... 3S = 4 5 2 2
...3NT = 4 5 2 2 honor(s) in both minors [ EDIT ]

After:
3H - 3S!
??
...3NT! = stiff ♦
... 4C! = stiff ♣
... 4D! = ♦ void
... 4H! = ♣ void
after:
4D! - 4S! ( kickback RKC for ♥; not worried about ♦-wastage since partner with extras must have "stuff" in the black suits )
5D ( 2 - ♥ Q ) - 6H

This post has been edited by TWO4BRIDGE: 2013-January-11, 10:30

[mike777]

A very interesting thread on many points during the bidding process and posts by all.

Give responder:

Qxx..A...KQTxxx...AKx or

Qxx...x...AKQxxx....AKx

I found myself bidding:

1h=2d
2h=3d
3nt=4nt
5nt=6d
6h?

2d=gf
2h=6
4nt=quant
5nt=pick a slam

[RSClyde]

 kenberg, on 2013-January-11, 08:31, said:

Since the original Q about the 4♣ call has probably run its course, let me take a minute to say something about the promise of six cards.

First, just as authorities go, I that it is pretty easy to find quite a few on either side of the issue. If i am not mistaken, Marty Bergen thinks it shows six, Mike Lawrence thinks it does not. I believe that an expert poll would go with the nots, but I am not certain. I think that the votes would change if we discussed 1♠-2♣-2♠. Here one can reason that partner did not support clubs, did not bid a red suit, and did not rebid 2NT, any of which can be done at the 2 level. Presumably he has six spades. The 1♥-2♦ auction leaves less room. Lawrence at least suggests ( he says it is worth considering) that 1♥-2♦-3♣ shows 5-5. I am pretty sure that this is on his CD on 2/1. I'll check this.

What you get for allowing a rebid of 2♥ on five cards is greater clarity when you do not rebid 2♥. If the 2♥ bid unequivocally shows six, then whenever you do not have six you have to do something else, and at least sometimes the choices will be unappealing. If, for example, over 2♦ you rebid 2NT, and if you could have bid a no extras 2♠ or 3♣ with four, then it is true that partner pretty much knows your shape. But you also may have KQx in one black suit and xxx in the other. I would rebid 2♥ with that hand. Similarly, if i have Qxxx in spades and a minimum hand, I rebid 2♥ and wait for partner to bid the spades if he has them.

If one way or the other were clearly superior we would all be doing it. Those who regularly play at a higher level than I do can perhaps say which approach is most in vogue. But I have played both ways and I prefer that 2♥ not promise six.

I think it's perfectly reasonable (probably even preferable) for a pair to agree that 2♥ "could be a variety of hands, and here are some follow-ups to sort it out..." I do that with a 2D rebid when partner GF's with clubs. Perhaps many of these experts do have some good followups(?)
But just "doesn't promise 6" end of story? As the question has shown, it now can become unclear exactly when partner does figure out that we have extra hearts. I guess I shouldn't say that I "don't understand why." I get it: I just don't find it very compelling.