[wyman]

Axxxxx Kx xx KQx

1S (4H) 4S (P)
5H (P) 5N (P)
6C (P) ??

(1) thoughts on 5N?
(2) what now?

[the hog]

wyman, on 2013-December-09, 19:59, said:

Axxxxx Kx xx KQx

1S (4H) 4S (P)
5H (P) 5N (P)
6C (P) ??

(1) thoughts on 5N?
(2) what now?

Well I would be playing 4S. Pd was under pressure with that bid and I am not going to crucify her for bidding 4.

[wyman]

the hog, on 2013-December-09, 20:10, said:

Well I would be playing 4S. Pd was under pressure with that bid and I am not going to crucify her for bidding 4.

Wat?

[Hanoi5]

(1) 5N to show the Heart King? I guess it's fine, 6♣ probably sounds like the Ace.
(2) 6N

[nige1]

wyman, on 2013-December-09, 19:59, said:

Axxxxx Kx xx KQx
1S (4H) 4S (P)
5H (P) 5N (P)
6C (P) ??
(1) thoughts on 5N?
(2) what now?

IMO

• After partner's 5♥, 6♠ = 10, 5♠ = 7, 6♣ = 5, 5N = 4. If ♥K is duplication, you have an excellent 9 count.
• Now, over 6♣, 6♠ = 10, 6♥ = 7, 6N = 6, 7♠ = 3. Partner opened 1♠ (not 2♣). He won't want to hear 6N if he holds ♠ KQxxxxx ♥- ♦ KQJxx ♣ A

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Why not cuebid 5C (over 4S ) ?
5H gobbled up too much room .

[quiddity]

Close between 6♥ and 7♠. Hopefully partner took my 5NT as denying a minor-suit ace and he's still trying for a grand. It sounds like he has a heart void in which case I can count 6 spades, two ruffs, 3 clubs, 1 diamond. Could he be missing the ♦KQ?

I think with a strong diamond suit he should cuebid 6♦, since the ♣A is implied, so maybe 6♥ is enough.

[the hog]

wyman, on 2013-December-09, 20:13, said:

Wat?

You read correctly. Pushing on with this is a BIG overbid.Just try and picture a few of the hands on which partner would bid 4S.
Pd might have anywhere from 5S a void and out to hand that makes 6.

Regarding Nigel's concoction of ♠ KQxxxxx ♥- ♦ KQJxx ♣ A
No bridge player would bid 4S holding this - you have to be kidding.

[wyman]

the hog, on 2013-December-09, 22:26, said:

You read correctly. Pushing on with this is a BIG overbid.Just try and picture a few of the hands on which partner would bid 4S.
Pd might have anywhere from 5S a void and out to hand that makes 6.

Regarding Nigel's concoction of ♠ KQxxxxx ♥- ♦ KQJxx ♣ A
No bridge player would bid 4S holding this - you have to be kidding.

I don't know what you think the auction is, but it's not the one I gave. You are responder.

[the hog]

wyman, on 2013-December-09, 22:37, said:

I don't know what you think the auction is, but it's not the one I gave. You are responder.

Sorry, I thought the given hand opened!

[broze]

Surely knowing the vulnerabilities is crucial in making decisions in this kind of auction and evaluating what hand-types p could have? If we are w/r for example p will expect relatively little for 4S and is probably very good.

5♥ in my book guarantees single A or void so it's very likely we have the grand on but I cannot unilaterally bid it However I will try 6♥ which should be a kind of last train bid denying a Diamond control since p does not need to know about my H holding. 6H will get us to grand opposite KQJxx -- Axxx AJxx (if you think p can have that) but not KQJxx -- AQJxx Axx. Again, when assessing what moves I think p would make with these hands I would want to know the colours.

[kenrexford]

I don't understand at all.

If 5♥ is a showing cuebid, Opener just denied a club control, so why are we thinking about a grand?

If 5♥ is a denial cuebid, Opener just denied a heart control, so why are we thinking about a grand?

If 5♥ somehow shows the King of trumps and three side Aces, where he would care about my heart King, you are playing a weird system.

If 5♥ shows a void in hearts, then why would 5NT show the heart King, a card that must be utterly useless?

[broze]

kenrexford, on 2013-December-10, 07:20, said:

<snip>
If 5♥ shows a void in hearts, then why would 5NT show the heart King, a card that must be utterly useless?

Why does anyone think 5N shows the HK - OP didn't suggest that did he? I've never heard of that treatment... For me it would just show a good hand for slam unable to bid 6♣ to show the Ace in that suit. I like 5N but only if 5♥ is void-showing, which I think it should be. It certainly makes no sense to play it as a showing cue-bid.

[wyman]

broze, on 2013-December-10, 04:15, said:

Surely knowing the vulnerabilities is crucial in making decisions in this kind of auction and evaluating what hand-types p could have? If we are w/r for example p will expect relatively little for 4S and is probably very good.

5♥ in my book guarantees single A or void so it's very likely we have the grand on but I cannot unilaterally bid it However I will try 6♥ which should be a kind of last train bid denying a Diamond control since p does not need to know about my H holding. 6H will get us to grand opposite KQJxx -- Axxx AJxx (if you think p can have that) but not KQJxx -- AQJxx Axx. Again, when assessing what moves I think p would make with these hands I would want to know the colours.

@ Broze/Quiddity: I try (and often fail) not to say too much in threads I start. But I guess I'm wondering, if you think I'm worth 6H -- which I'm not necessarily disagreeing with -- what do you think is the minimum I can have for 5N?

@ Everyone: I didn't specify, but partner has a pulse. He's not bidding 5H missing 3 aces, and we don't play denial cuebids. Partner is a very strong player, but suffice it to say that we didn't discuss this auction before the session.

[ArtK78]

Partner's first cue bid is 5♥. To me, this denies first round control of both minor suits. So I sign off in 5♠.

Why do you say partner is not bidding 5♥ missing 3 aces? What would he do with KQJTxx --- KQJTxx x? And, if he is a strong player, why would he not be cue bidding a minor suit ace if he had one?

The 5♥ bid makes no sense to me unless he has a hand like the one I suggested.

[CSGibson]

I like 5N (encouraging, showing more than 6♠) as long as I had the plan of bidding 6♠ over anything partner did, and as long as partner has not denied minor suit aces by bidding 5♥ (a style that makes some sense to me, especially if partner has controls in every suit, and needs to make a general slam try, which is what I believe 5♥ should be...you can't make an intelligent "invite partner to the party" Q with that hand, since partner is known not to have any 1st round controls, and cannot cooperate).

I strongly believe that since this is your first opportunity to Q, any 6 level Q should show first round control. So now, 6♠ - partner will infer secondary honors and good trump for having bid 5N and not being able to cue a 1st round control at the 6 level.

This was edited to expand on my original thoughts.

This post has been edited by CSGibson: 2013-December-10, 13:10

[quiddity]

wyman, on 2013-December-10, 09:13, said:

@ Broze/Quiddity: I try (and often fail) not to say too much in threads I start. But I guess I'm wondering, if you think I'm worth 6H -- which I'm not necessarily disagreeing with -- what do you think is the minimum I can have for 5N?

Maybe the same hand with two fewer spades?

[kenrexford]

This is insanity, but...

If 5♥ implies a void, and if 5NT was some sort of cuebid showing grand interest with no Aces, and if 6♣ by partner encouraged slam consideration anyway, then 6♥ should be a cuebid showing club values but no diamond values, an implied COV in clubs. You have that, so 6♥ it is, I guess!

[quiddity]

CSGibson, on 2013-December-10, 11:54, said:

I strongly believe that since this is your first opportunity to Q, any 6 level Q should show first round control. So now, 6♠ - partner will infer secondary honors and good trump for having bid 5N and not being able to cue a 1st round control at the 6 level.

If you had a first-round control you could have Q'd it over 5♥.

[nige1]

wyman, on 2013-December-10, 09:13, said:

@ Broze/Quiddity: I try (and often fail) not to say too much in threads I start. But I guess I'm wondering, if you think I'm worth 6H -- which I'm not necessarily disagreeing with -- what do you think is the minimum I can have for 5N?
@ Everyone: I didn't specify, but partner has a pulse. He's not bidding 5H missing 3 aces, and we don't play denial cuebids. Partner is a very strong player, but suffice it to say that we didn't discuss this auction before the session

Following wyman's persuasive argument:

• Partner's 5♥ is an unambiguous slam-try.
• Your 5N co-operated, denying 1st round control in a minor.
• Partner's 6♣ showed he still has grand-slam interest.

Of the two minors, why did partner choose to cue-bid 6♣? Is he asking for help in that suit? If so he has no worse than
♠ K Q J x x x ♥- ♦ A x ♣ A J x x x or
♠ K Q J x x ♥ A ♦ A x ♣ A x x x x

Hence, I suppose you should just bid 7♠