[fred]

Just to add some excitement to an otherwise boring discussion of 5NT and 6C...

Unless I have missed something, there has not much said about expected shape(s) for 5NT and 6C. How many suits are suggested by these bids?

If 5NT suggests 3 suits, then you probably have a club void so maybe there is not much point in using 6C to show a club void that you could have shown with 5NT (unless maybe it is a "Serious 5NT" situation ). Maybe then:

- 6C is a grand slam try in spades with first round club control
- 5NT then 6S is a grand slam try in spades lacking first round club control

(There is more to making this playable than what is written above)

If 5NT could also suggest only two suits (presumably a montrous 6-4 hand that may or may not have a club void), you can't use 5NT then 6S as a grand slam try. In this case, if you think a grand slam try in spades is important to have, you still might want to consider using 6C for this purpose.

Yes I know it is obscure to think of catering to hands that are interested in 7S but it is also obscure to think of catering to monstrous 3-suited hands that are interested in 7whatever.

This is hard stuff that becomes much harder when you consider that everything is different if the opening bid was 1H or the overcall was 5D.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Jlall]

Fred, I'm not sure, but I'd like 2 ways to bid 3 suiters, based on how good my hand is. I could have a 21 count, or this 15 count, or whatever. It seems like I should differentiate. Probably something artificial to handle really good vs just good 2 suiters/1 suiters is good also though.

[lamford]

Jlall, on Jan 24 2010, 07:42 PM, said:

Fred, I'm not sure, but I'd like 2 ways to bid 3 suiters, based on how good my hand is. I could have a 21 count, or this 15 count, or whatever. It seems like I should differentiate. Probably something artificial to handle really good vs just good 2 suiters/1 suiters is good also though.

On this hand, dealer is known to have 10-15, so it might not be as necessary to show different strengths. One method a partner has suggested is that 5NT is takeout better diamonds or a grand slam try in spades without first round club control and 6C takeout better hearts or a grand slam try in spades with a first round club control. If you are 5-5, then you will bid your second suit at the appropriate level, but you may well be 5-(3 4) 1 or 5 (4 4) 0.

All of this sounds like a huge strain on memory for a rare sequence.

[Jlall]

lamford, on Jan 24 2010, 07:53 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jan 24 2010, 07:42 PM, said:

Fred, I'm not sure, but I'd like 2 ways to bid 3 suiters, based on how good my hand is. I could have a 21 count, or this 15 count, or whatever. It seems like I should differentiate. Probably something artificial to handle really good vs just good 2 suiters/1 suiters is good also though.

On this hand, dealer is known to have 10-15, so it might not be as necessary to show different strengths.

Great point, and admittedly I did not notice this. I think 5C is a standout then.

Quote

All of this sounds like a huge strain on memory for a rare sequence.

Agree with this also.

[fred]

Jlall, on Jan 25 2010, 12:42 AM, said:

Fred, I'm not sure, but I'd like 2 ways to bid 3 suiters, based on how good my hand is. I could have a 21 count, or this 15 count, or whatever. It seems like I should differentiate. Probably something artificial to handle really good vs just good 2 suiters/1 suiters is good also though.

I wasn't being completely serious about recommending the interpretation I proposed. The main reason for my post was that I was a little surprised that there appeared to be such a strong consensus for what 5NT and 6C were all about (and little or no discussion about expected shapes for these bids).

I also didn't realize that 1S was a limited opening (oops). Now the very concept of making any grand slam try is silly so at first glance 6C seems obvious and free with this hand. After a second glance I am not so sure, but I will spare you the details because Lamford managed to wake me up with this wise statement:

Quote

All of this sounds like a huge strain on memory for a rare sequence.

I guess we all get a little Ken Rexford in us from time to time

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[debrose]

I like to have the following agreement in my notes with regular partners:

"In comp, 5N is always pick-a-slam and a Q-bid of their suit which forces us to slam is always a grand slam try."

I don't claim this solves all problems, or that I have a lot of experience with these auctions coming up. But I very much like having this basic general agreement, rather than a lot of memory strain, or hoping to be on the same wavelength on whatever specific auction comes up. Of course there are still the problems of two-suited vs. three-suited, and what one should have to make a grand try in any given context. Still, I think we're likely to be closer to the same wavelength with this agreement than with none at all, and it certainly doesn't require much memory strain.

On the actual hand, given that opener was limited, I think 6♣ is a standout. Sure, you may not even belong at the 6 level, but since I don't know what strain we belong in a the 5-level, I'm going to stretch. Once I do so, I think in context of the limited opening I am worth the grand try.

On the responding hand which was given, I would double. I think it's pointless to try to pinpoint what these high level doubles "show" (I think there was another recent thread about doubling 4♠ ), or what to call them. Whether you call it takeout, optional, cards, or even penalty, the fact is that any hand which is too good to pass, and is unwilling to commit to bidding at the necessary level, is going to have to double. That's a lot of hand types. I do think it can be useful to discuss what the partner of the doubler will tend to do with various hands, since that might help when one has a close call as to whether to double or bid (or pass). You're still going to have a lot of guesses on these high level auctions, no matter how clear your agreements are. Especially since a lot of IMPS are often at stake, it's certainly an area worth discussing quite a bit. Pretending that it's realistic to get very specific about what the doubler should have isn't going to help though, imo.

[Codo]

I had doubled with partners hand too. If I pass, partner will often be forced to pass with his limited opening and with a more boring 5440 or 6331 then his actual hand.
And X will gain in cases where opener has to reopen and I have a totally broken hand. All these hands are more common then a balanced 11 count.

On this hand: 5 ♣ had worked against me. I had reached 6 in a major - no success.