[kfay]

---

[ArtK78]

6♦. Partner is not happy with either of my suits, but I have to show him that I have a LOT of red cards.

Given the lack of a strong fit, I cannot commit the hand to the 7 level (aside from the fact that I cannot guarantee that the opps don't have a cashing ace). But I will certainly give partner a good description of my distribution and a reasonable description of my strength.

It is possible that partner will be able to bid one more in one of my suits, but I am not holding out too much hope. He cannot expect this much strength. I just don't see any obvious way to suggest a grand other than to show my extreme shape with slam values. Any subtle bid, like 5NT for example, risks missing slam and/or playing in the wrong strain.

[mikeh]

What a nightmare. I didn't do a simulation (yet) but I'm willing to bet that we make grand about 50% of the time, and maybe a lot more often than that. But we need grand to be heavily odds on to throw away the virtually assured small slam, so I can't unilaterally bid 7♦.

I don't see him ever moving over 6♥, a contract that will likely pick up an imp or 2 over 6♦, and I see a slim chance of him moving over 6♦: AJ10x Ax Qxx AKQx is maybe acceptable for 4N, and surely warrants 7♦ over 6.

So I choose 6♦ and make a mental note that once again relays would have worked out better

[Phil]

I think 6♦ is plenty. A very possible hand type is an underweight 3226.

[lalldonn]

Why not bid 5NT then 6♦ if he bids 6♣ instead? That seems to do a better job getting across our relative suit lengths than 6♦ directly.

[Fluffy]

if 5NT is pick a slam I do that and raise to 7

[gnasher]

5♣. If he signs off in a red-suit, I raise to 6, and hope he appreciates that this is a grand-slm try. If he bids 5♠, it's difficult - I want to bid 6♣, but it sounds like a suggestion for the final contract.

[lalldonn]

gnasher, on 2012-November-13, 17:20, said:

5♣. If he signs off in a red-suit, I raise to 6, and hope he appreciates that this is a grand-slm try. If he bids 5♠, it's difficult - I want to bid 6♣, but it sounds like a suggestion for the final contract.

As does 5♣?

[mikeh]

gnasher, on 2012-November-13, 17:20, said:

5♣. If he signs off in a red-suit, I raise to 6, and hope he appreciates that this is a grand-slm try. If he bids 5♠, it's difficult - I want to bid 6♣, but it sounds like a suggestion for the final contract.

]

Absent a Vulcan mind-meld, I doubt that he'll figure out that you bid your void for your grand slam try....sort of an exclusion cuebid.

And heaven help you, because the opps won't, if he should pass 5♣...btw if you were to argue that it must be forcing, I'd be agreeing with you but I'd still be terrified waiting for the bidding tray to reappear.

[Phil]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-13, 16:14, said:

Why not bid 5NT then 6♦ if he bids 6♣ instead? That seems to do a better job getting across our relative suit lengths than 6♦ directly.

That sounds an awful lot like 3541.

[lalldonn]

Phil, on 2012-November-13, 19:42, said:

That sounds an awful lot like 3541.

Wow really? I would never assume partner was offering a new suit for this bid until the auction proved it, especially a higher suit.

[Phil]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-13, 19:45, said:

Wow really? I would never assume partner was offering a new suit for this bid until the auction proved it, especially a higher suit.

After I typed it I thought, maybe thats what 5♠ over 4N shows.

But when I pull 6♣ to 6♦, obviously I have something in mind.

[gnasher]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-13, 18:04, said:

As does 5♣?

mikeh, on 2012-November-13, 18:12, said:

Absent a Vulcan mind-meld, I doubt that he'll figure out that you bid your void for your grand slam try....sort of an exclusion cuebid.

And heaven help you, because the opps won't, if he should pass 5♣...btw if you were to argue that it must be forcing, I'd be agreeing with you but I'd still be terrified waiting for the bidding tray to reappear.

It's certainly a good idea to have agreements about this sort of thing, but it seems unplayable for 5♣ to be passable. If 5♣ showed a non-forcing 1543 or 0544, where would we play opposite 4234 or 5233? I agree that one could play it as forcing with that shape, but if that's how he interprets it we're unlikely to get into trouble - I can just correct 6♣ to 6♦.

As for what partner will expect me to have, if we bid ...5♣-5♦;6♦ I hope he will work out that I have a red two-suiter with grand-slam interest and no first-round spade control. If the auction goes differently, or if he doesn't understand, I'm no worse off than if I'd jumped to 6♦.

[lalldonn]

If he doesn't understand because he assumes you are 0544 then you are certainly worse off.

I don't think it's unplayable to play it's natural with 0544 and non-forcing just because there is one shape partner can have where we have no fit. And if it indeed is natural then I think it's logically non-forcing since you could have bid 6c instead. I have no idea what it should mean and I've never discussed it with anyone, but I'm not about to find out what partner thinks the hard way.

[han]

To me a jump to 6D would sooner show 5-6 in the reds than 6-5. I would expect partner not to correct with 2-2 in the reds.

If 5H was forcing I'd try that, but I think that it is merely slam invitational and would certainly not risk it at the table.

5NT followed by 6D does justice to our red suit lengths, but gives up on the grand. Perhaps we should bid 7 if partner picks 6D himself. Grand prospects are better when partner has 3 diamonds compared to the 3-2-2-6 Josh suggests. My double dummy simulation says 7D has 87% chance when partner is 2-3 in the reds. Double dummy simulations tend to overstate our chances in slams so it is not clear what this means in practice, but at least we won't be off a major suit ace very often.

The other table will almost always be in slam, so which odds do we need to bid 7? 56%?

[rhm]

kfay, on 2012-November-13, 12:39, said:

---

I would have bid the hand differently:

Depending on agreements either

2NT-3♦
3♥-5♣

or

2NT-4♦
4♥-5♣

should be exclusion keycard Blackwood, which I would choose.
If partner showed me 2 key-cards I would bid next 7♦ and otherwise 6NT.

As the bidding went I would bid

6NT at matchpoints
7♦ at IMPs.

Rainer Herrmann

[dake50]

Does 6C show a C-void after H-xfer + natural 4D?
Seems logical as the only reason to jump.
Partner can assess his SA+HA +(SK,or DQ, but not CKQJ) as grand slammy.

[aguahombre]

han, on 2012-November-14, 04:05, said:

To me a jump to 6D would sooner show 5-6 in the reds than 6-5. I would expect partner not to correct with 2-2 in the reds.

If 5H was forcing I'd try that, but I think that it is merely slam invitational and would certainly not risk it at the table.

5NT followed by 6D does justice to our red suit lengths, but gives up on the grand. Perhaps we should bid 7 if partner picks 6D himself. Grand prospects are better when partner has 3 diamonds compared to the 3-2-2-6 Josh suggests. My double dummy simulation says 7D has 87% chance when partner is 2-3 in the reds. Double dummy simulations tend to overstate our chances in slams so it is not clear what this means in practice, but at least we won't be off a major suit ace very often.

The other table will almost always be in slam, so which odds do we need to bid 7? 56%?

Yep. It summarizes what should be the difference between 5N and 6D, and I agree with carrying on to 7 only if opener chooses diamonds.

[ArtK78]

han, on 2012-November-14, 04:05, said:

To me a jump to 6D would sooner show 5-6 in the reds than 6-5. I would expect partner not to correct with 2-2 in the reds.

If 5H was forcing I'd try that, but I think that it is merely slam invitational and would certainly not risk it at the table.

5NT followed by 6D does justice to our red suit lengths, but gives up on the grand. Perhaps we should bid 7 if partner picks 6D himself. Grand prospects are better when partner has 3 diamonds compared to the 3-2-2-6 Josh suggests. My double dummy simulation says 7D has 87% chance when partner is 2-3 in the reds. Double dummy simulations tend to overstate our chances in slams so it is not clear what this means in practice, but at least we won't be off a major suit ace very often.

The other table will almost always be in slam, so which odds do we need to bid 7? 56%?

aguahombre, on 2012-November-14, 10:48, said:

Yep. It summarizes what should be the difference between 5N and 6D, and I agree with carrying on to 7 only if opener chooses diamonds.

I find this kind of amusing. Han sets forth what he thinks 5NT should be and how he would follow up, but admits that he would not trot out 5NT at the table for fear of being passed.

Agua agrees with Han about how to show 6-5 with longer hearts, but conveniently does not touch on the issue of 5NT being forcing.

Which leaves us with the practical problem of how to bid these cards and getting to a red suit. If you are not sure that 5NT is forcing (and I am more than not sure - I would expect it to be nonforcing) I would bid 6♦ and not worry about whether I am showing longer hearts or longer diamonds. I am within a card one way or the other and I am confident that we will wind up playing in one of the red suits at the slam level, which is what I think I want.

[lalldonn]

Art, han questioned whether 5♥ is forcing, not 5NT. I have no doubt that for me or anyone I play with 5NT is forcing. It could only be non-forcing if it's natural, which doesn't seem very useful to me.