[bid_em_up]

EricK, on Jun 4 2007, 10:33 PM, said:

On the other hand, if partner wanted to make GSF in ♣ why didn't he agree ♣ first?

Because....are you certain that 4C is 100% forcing?

Look at AKxxx xxx Qx Kxx for example, and how will you bid it? Are you going to pass 3C? Are you going to blast 5C and lose 3 hearts off the top? (Or 2 hearts and a side loser in either diamonds or clubs).

[cherdano]

Grrrrrrrrr, I could read this once without commenting, but twice is enough. 1D 1S 2C 2H 3C 4C IS FORCING!!!!!!!!*

Also, responder has no way to "support both minors" in standard bidding.

(* = unless you have agreed 4st forcing is invite+ only, but that's not the default agreement with an expert pickup partner)

[FrancesHinden]

With a top class pick-up partner I would wonder why he had sprung this bid on me.

Then I would assume it is grand slam force.

With my regular partners this auction simply doesn't exist. When clubs have been agreed we play 5♠ as GSF and 5NT as a spade cue bid, but partner would agree clubs first. If partner had bid 5♠ rather than 5NT I would indeed assume it was GSF in clubs

[SoTired]

5N is GSF. PERIOD. What suit? Clubs! I have AQ of clubs, so I bid 7C. Simple. What is partner's hand? Something like AKQxxx Ax Ax KJx

[sathyab]

A little late to the party here, but honestly I don't see 5nt as pick a slam at all here. Pick a slam is used when there are two strains to pick (from among three ?), with pass/correct options and bidding room is constrained to preclude expressing all of the above nuances. Here 5nt has to be GSF for the second suit. Almost everyone plays the raise to 4c as forcing these days, but if undiscussed, I'm sure it wouldn't be unreasonable to think of it as merely invitational. I wonder if 4d over 3c would be considered invitational as well, I hope not, but then again, it's natural and undiscussed, so not an unreasonable interpretation. I'd bid 7c which partner can pass or correct to 7d.

[jdonn]

sathyab, on Jun 5 2007, 01:26 PM, said:

A little late to the party here, but honestly I don't see 5nt as pick a slam at all here. Pick a slam is used when there are two strains to pick (from among three ?), with pass/correct options and bidding room is constrained to preclude expressing all of the above nuances. Here 5nt has to be GSF for the second suit. Almost everyone plays the raise to 4c as forcing these days, but if undiscussed, I'm sure it wouldn't be unreasonable to think of it as merely invitational. I wonder if 4d over 3c would be considered invitational as well, I hope not, but then again, it's natural and undiscussed, so not an unreasonable interpretation. I'd bid 7c which partner can pass or correct to 7d.

Wasn't 2♥ game forcing? ....

[jdonn]

SoTired, on Jun 5 2007, 01:16 PM, said:

5N is GSF. PERIOD.

Solid bridge argument backed up by reasonable points.

And partner didn't bid 4♣ first to clarify because...?

[bid_em_up]

cherdano, on Jun 5 2007, 11:40 AM, said:

Grrrrrrrrr, I could read this once without commenting, but twice is enough. 1D 1S 2C 2H 3C 4C IS FORCING!!!!!!!!*

Says who? You? Oh, and I suppose that makes it gospel.

While it may be that you play it this way, not everybody does. And you still dont explain what you will do on the hand I gave, if 4C is 100% g/f. 5C will be too high, 3N won't make, but yet you are claiming that opener holding the given hand is now forced to bid 5C simply because 4C IS FORCING!!!!!!!, as you put it. Bullsh*t.

Growl all you wish, it does not make you correct for all partnerships. And probably not even in yours......

[pclayton]

bid_em_up, on Jun 5 2007, 10:41 AM, said:

cherdano, on Jun 5 2007, 11:40 AM, said:

Grrrrrrrrr, I could read this once without commenting, but twice is enough. 1D 1S 2C 2H 3C 4C IS FORCING!!!!!!!!*

Says who? You? Oh, and I suppose that makes it gospel.

While it may be that you play it this way, not everybody does. And you still dont explain what you will do on the hand I gave, if 4C is 100% g/f. 5C will be too high, 3N won't make, but yet you are claiming that opener holding the given hand is now forced to bid 5C simply because 4C IS FORCING!!!!!!!, as you put it. Bullsh*t.

Growl all you wish, it does not make you correct for all partnerships. And probably not even in yours......

No. Its Gospel because I say it.

This isn't a probe for 3N that bails out in 4 minor. There are auctions where this is possible, but this isn't one of them. 3♣ hardly denies a heart stopper.

Please don't suggest that 4♣ isn't forcing. Since Josh the Merciless will nail me if I don't give specifics, look at the auction to date:

1♦ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♥
3♣

Forget about the fact that 2♥ is game forcing, because some pairs play it as a one round force.

Responder had the option of raising 3♣ previously with a hand that only wants to invite.

Well, (you say), what if Responder was using 2♥ simply to check back to see if opener had 5 spades, with a crappy 11 count? It sounds odd, but responder can still pass 3♣. Using this (strange) agreement, Opener needs to do something more forward going with extras.

The flipside of this is, what is responder supposed to with a 5=3=2=3 19 count. He can't raise clubs initially (say 4♣), because there's no guarantee of an 8 card fit. Once Opener fesses up to holding 5 clubs, 4 clubs is the only way responder can make a slam try and set trump.

[Halo]

Guess the only question after the 4th suit is whether 4C is RKCB as well. But so what, 5NT is obviously GSF.

[Echognome]

I'll argue that 4♣ is forcing for a simple reason. Why would you want to make a 4m bid as invitational? Does it make any sense to cater to hands that can make exactly 10 tricks in a minor?

I can understand that there may be auctions where you tried for 3NT and recognized that you have a problem and try to bail out in 4m (even though I don't account for any of these hands in any system I've played).

It's simply daft to consider using 4m as an invitational sequence. Much more importantly it's good to be able to set a minor as trumps for slam exploration.

I'm not saying my word is gospel, just giving reasons why I believe playing 4m as invitational rather than slammish is inferior.

[SoTired]

jdonn, on Jun 5 2007, 01:31 PM, said:

SoTired, on Jun 5 2007, 01:16 PM, said:

5N is GSF. PERIOD.

Solid bridge argument backed up by reasonable points.

And partner didn't bid 4♣ first to clarify because...?

OK - some reasons:

Maybe was worried it did not sound forcing ? I think it is forcing...everyone else says it is forcing...but maybe... . Maybe partner wanted to make sure that opener did not bid 4N or 4S first which would muddy the waters when all responder wanted to bid was GSF for clubs.

5N does not otherwise make any sense. How could this be pick a slam? If partner had 3d, partner would bid 3D over 3C which is forcing. Opener has shown 5-5 already so responder knows which minor to bid.

[Halo]

Compelling argument from Sotired. Why not 4C.. one small clue for Hercule Poirot. Why 5NT, one huge clue for Hercule -GSF.

[jdonn]

SoTired, on Jun 5 2007, 02:22 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 5 2007, 01:31 PM, said:

SoTired, on Jun 5 2007, 01:16 PM, said:

5N is GSF. PERIOD.

Solid bridge argument backed up by reasonable points.

And partner didn't bid 4♣ first to clarify because...?

OK - some reasons:

Maybe was worried it did not sound forcing ? I think it is forcing...everyone else says it is forcing...but maybe... . Maybe partner wanted to make sure that opener did not bid 4N or 4S first which would muddy the waters when all responder wanted to bid was GSF for clubs.

5N does not otherwise make any sense. How could this be pick a slam? If partner had 3d, partner would bid 3D over 3C which is forcing. Opener has shown 5-5 already so responder knows which minor to bid.

The 'it doesn't sound forcing' argument holds no water with me since it's so obviously a forcing bid. Responder bids 3♣ over 2♣ to invite.

As for partner being able to bid 3♦ if he is 3-3 in the minors in order to set trumps. He can, but the entire point is he doesn't know which suit is better! If he has Hxx of both he certainly wants to play in your HHHxx over your Hxxxx.

[awm]

There are definitely hands where pick-a-slam is useful in this auction. Give responder something like:

AKxxxx
Axx
Kx
Kx

Opener could have any of the following:

Qx
x
AQxxx
QJxxx

6♠ is quite good (need spades 3-2 and clubs not 5-1). Other slams require a 3-3 break and more.

xx
x
AQJTx
Axxxx

6NT has basically no play. Six of opener's stronger minor is excellent. Six of opener's weaker minor requires trumps 3-3. Six spades requires spades 3-2.

x
Kx
AQJxx
QJxxx

6NT requires a 3-3 club break. Six spades has no play. Six of opener's stronger minor is quite good.

x
K
AQJTxx
Qxxxx

Only 6♦ has any chance. However, 6♦ is almost cold on a non-trump lead and has chances even if trumps are lead at trick one (plan to ruff two spades and pitch three clubs on spades assuming they are 4-2, with heart overtake as entry).

Anyways, if 5NT is not "pick a slam" it's not totally clear what opener should rebid after 3♣ on the given hand. It seems likely that some slam will be good, but bidding 3♦ or 4♣ seems to set that suit, and bidding 3♠ certainly emphasizes the spade suit more than is warranted (the responder hand is a fine dummy for 6-minor in many cases). If 5NT is "pick a slam" then it seems relatively straightforward to bid 4♣ in order to get to grand slam force.

[bid_em_up]

jdonn, on Jun 5 2007, 03:37 PM, said:

Responder bids 3♣ over 2♣ to invite.

Since when does the auction 1D 1S 2C promise a five card club suit? So what you are saying is partner is supposed to be inviting holding only invitational values and what is only a known 4-3 fit at this point?

In what book did you read that? Seriously. I want to read it for myself. 'Cause I don't believe you.

(This applies to Phil as well, who also stated responder can bid 3C directly over to invite).

Last time I checked, a 3C bid now promises better support than three card support, as in my earlier given hand (AKxxx xxx Qx Kxx). It could have changed though and I didn't get the memo.

[SoTired]

awm, on Jun 5 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

There are definitely hands where pick-a-slam is useful in this auction. Give responder something like:
<snip example hands>

Yes, I can see responder may have reason to say, "I know there is slam, but not grand, in either spades, diam or clubs. You pick" .... My counter argument:

1) How is opener to know all 3 suits (and NT?) are in play. If responder only has 2 of 3 how is opener to know which 2?
2) How is opener to know exactly what responder needs for the suit to be considered
3) Responder has to have the "perfect" hand to have all 3 suits almost but not quite selectable and only opener knows for sure
4) Why does this override the more obvious GSF meaning

[jdonn]

bid_em_up, on Jun 5 2007, 03:43 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 5 2007, 03:37 PM, said:

Responder bids 3♣ over 2♣ to invite.

Since when does the auction 1D 1S 2C promise a five card club suit? So what you are saying is partner is supposed to be inviting holding only invitational values and what is only a known 4-3 fit at this point?

In what book did you read that? Seriously. I want to read it for myself. 'Cause I don't believe you.

(This applies to Phil as well, who also stated responder can bid 3C directly over to invite).

Last time I checked, a 3C bid now promises better support than three card support, as in my earlier given hand (AKxxx xxx Qx Kxx). It could have changed though and I didn't get the memo.

5323 invitational with no heart stopper is a problem hand. So what? How would it be any different if you held 5323 game forcing and you played 3♣ as forcing and 2♥ then 4♣ as invitational, you still wouldn't know if partner had 5 clubs or not. Your biting sarcasm would have more impact if you were right.

[jdonn]

SoTired, on Jun 5 2007, 04:19 PM, said:

awm, on Jun 5 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

There are definitely hands where pick-a-slam is useful in this auction. Give responder something like:
<snip example hands>

Yes, I can see responder may have reason to say, "I know there is slam, but not grand, in either spades, diam or clubs. You pick" .... My counter argument:

1) How is opener to know all 3 suits (and NT?) are in play. If responder only has 2 of 3 how is opener to know which 2?
2) How is opener to know exactly what responder needs for the suit to be considered
3) Responder has to have the "perfect" hand to have all 3 suits almost but not quite selectable and only opener knows for sure
4) Why does this override the more obvious GSF meaning

1) Opener doesn't know, he bids the lowest suit that he is interested in (in context) and responder doesn't pass if that wasn't to be considered. So opener bids 6♣ if he likes his club suit, and if responder was only considering say diamonds and notrump, he pulls to 6♦. It's easy.

2) Kxxxx bad. KJTxx good. AKQxx really good. And so on.

3) Neither meaning is particularly common, but a hand where responder isn't sure where to play is WAY more common than 'I can make a grand somewhere if you have 2 top club honors'.

4) Obvious to who exactly? I think it's obviously pick a slam.

[sathyab]

[quote name='jdonn' date='Jun 5 2007, 04:33 PM'][quote name='SoTired' date='Jun 5 2007, 04:19 PM'] [quote name='awm' date='Jun 5 4) Obvious to who exactly? I think it's obviously pick a slam.[/QUOTE']
Given that partner could have easily set trumps after the 2h GF bid, but didn't choose to, it's "obvious" to me now that 5nt must be pick a slam. But I don't know if anyone would bid 6s holding Qx x AQJxx KQxxx to get to 6s whenever it's right. It seems that in practice 5nt is more likely "pick a minor suit slam" than "pick a slam".