[dcohio]

Scoring: MP

Bidding (opps silent)

1♣-1♠
2♠-4NT (1430)
5♣-5♦ 1, Q?
6♣-6♦ Q♠+K♣, K♦
6♥-? K♥

---

So we have partner with at least KQ??, K??, ???, K??

That is 11 points, and most likely 4333, or 4(32)4. The 2♠ bid puts partner in the range of 12-14 (partner does not open balanced 11s)

With losing trick count, I get 5 losers vs 6 losers. 24-11 = 13.

So... 6♠, 6NT, 7♠ and 7NT are my choices.

At matchpoints where are you placing the contract? At IMPs where do you place it?

[andy_h]

How are we so sure partner is one of those two shapes? Could we have not bid 2NT previously to make a further enquiry before blasting blackwood? I mean, 2♠ is what I would bid with KQxx Kx xx KJxxx or KQxx Kxx x KQxxx or KQxx K xx KQxxxx or KQJx KQxx xxx Kx (assuming short club) etc and all of these hand types will result in different contracts such as spades if we need a ruff or NT's if we can be sure of certain 12/13 tricks.

Btw, I would highly recommend to not use the losing trick count at all as part of your judgement in placing the contract as they tend to flucuate. They can be an ok guideline if you're starting off but they are rarely ever used nowadays among good players except for when you're judgeing how good your hand is based on losers (basically shape). Besides, even as you said partner has either 4333 or 4324, I count 5.5 losers in my hand and partner has 8 or 7 losers which add up to 24-13.5 or 24-12.5, nowhere near 13.

But of course, with the given types of hands I wrote before 7NT could be laydown. Now I'm at a guess really.

Edit: I just realised, but what would 5♥ by partner be over our queen ask?

[straube]

6S.

Your 6D should be read as an invitation to the grand....confirmed by you bidding 6S over his positive response. If you bid 6N then remotely/possibly you were considering whether to play 6S or 6N and this would only be a consideration at mps anyway.

If partner has KQxx Kx xx KQxxx he ought to bid 7S.

[Fluffy]

good point andy, partner doesn't have ♥K, but he has ♣Q and 5 of them since that's the only extras that I can think of. So lets settle for 7♠.

if 6♥ really meant ♥K all that is left is to sing off in 6♠ since we have totally no extras.

[dcohio]

As far as shapes go, I wasn't worried if partner had longer clubs as that makes getting to 13 tricks a whole lot easeir than if she had 3 or 4. I was looking at my worst case scenario shapes (I probably shouldn't have written "most likely" more of "most likely when DCOhio bids a slam and doesn't get a suit to run")

a bid of 5♥ would have shown the spade queen and heart king as well. I think my partner forgot that which is why I gave her the chance to show it again.

My overall question (the hand is ice cold for 7NT or 7S) is more about how to pick the right slam for the scoring.

I personally felt the field was going to either play in 6NT or 7S. The game I was playing in was a LM playing with NLM game or two NLM (I just realized I posted this in the wrong forum I meant to put it in the intermediate section...).

If the field is mostly in 6NT or 7S when is it correct to try 7NT? I think at IMPS I wouldn't have even considered 7NT, I'm 99% sure I'm playing 7S here.

[Fluffy]

you are too agressive IMO, I can see 6NT being down with a 4333 opposite but 6♠ being cold.

Spades could play better even if partner has the mirror shape

[jdonn]

Of course I would have asked about partner's shape. But even given this auction I think 6♦ was a key error. Don't forget 5NT already shows all the keycards so if partner has a great source of tricks he will always bid a grand. To have a good grand you usually want partner to have a source of tricks, like either KQxx Kx xx KQxxx or KQxx KQJx xx Kxx. Bidding 6♦ invites him to bid a grand with less, like KQxx KQx xx Kxxx, because he has an extra trick.

(It's true that I would miss the grand with this suggestion if he has KQxx Kxx xx KQxx but it's marginal without one of the black jacks, and anyway there is a little bit of guesswork involved in which case stretching to bid close grands has proved to be a losing strategy.)

This 6♦ bid is similar to a complaint I often have about people playing last train. They just use it because it's there. Think about what you are showing and what partner will infer in these auctions and you will do much better, rather than "well a grand is still possible so I'll keep asking for kings."

[Old York]

I would be much happier showing my 4 Aces and King to partner than asking about her Kings and trump queen with no idea about source of tricks or final strain.

With a fistful of Aces, it is better to answer Blackwood than to ask.

If you could make a forcing, slam invitational raise to game, then partner may be in a better position to bid 4NT and your responses will get you to 7NT. I use 3NT as a serious slam invitation here, if partner tries to sign-off in 4♠ then I continue as you did

1♣-1♠-2♠-3NT* etc
or maybe 1♣-1♠-2♠-4♣ or similar

However, as I suggested in a recent post, it is often a good idea to "follow the herd" and just bid the grand slam anyway

Tony

p.s. If your partner had ♣KQJxx then it was her responsibility to bid 7NT as she can count 13 top tricks, or with ♣KQJx bid 7♠ counting 12 top tricks and a red suit ruff

[dake50]

Well, I didn't take captaincy with RKC to not grand, did I? I did have other force exploring bids available?

7NT.

[jdonn]

dake50, on Feb 19 2010, 08:20 AM, said:

Well, I didn't take captaincy with RKC to not grand, did I? I did have other force exploring bids available?

7NT.

Lol, more important to justify previous choices in the post mortem than to bid a making slam I guess!

[cherdanno]

jdonn, on Feb 19 2010, 01:06 AM, said:

Of course I would have asked about partner's shape. But even given this auction I think 6♦ was a key error. Don't forget 5NT already shows all the keycards so if partner has a great source of tricks he will always bid a grand. To have a good grand you usually want partner to have a source of tricks, like either KQxx Kx xx KQxxx or KQxx KQJx xx Kxx. Bidding 6♦ invites him to bid a grand with less, like KQxx KQx xx Kxxx, because he has an extra trick.

(It's true that I would miss the grand with this suggestion if he has KQxx Kxx xx KQxx but it's marginal without one of the black jacks, and anyway there is a little bit of guesswork involved in which case stretching to bid close grands has proved to be a losing strategy.)

This 6♦ bid is similar to a complaint I often have about people playing last train. They just use it because it's there. Think about what you are showing and what partner will infer in these auctions and you will do much better, rather than "well a grand is still possible so I'll keep asking for kings."

It seems this partnership was playing spiral scan. Here asker is usually in control, and he is free to keep asking if, say, he knows one keycard is missing but he would like to decide between 6S and 6NT.
Of course, it doesn't really help your cause to mention a non-existing 5NT bid either

Anyway, the key mistake was obviously 4NT (ESPECIALLY if playing spiral scan in the style I am assuming).

[kenrexford]

I'm not exactly following some of the discussion regarding why a blast to 4NT was or was not right and was or was not somehow possibly systemically forced. But, I cannot fathom how a double jump to 4NT followed by a questiuon about strain makes sense. If you double jump to 4NT, if that ever makes sense, strain should not be an issue, or strain should resolve by the answers to 4NT. If strain is an issue, then maybe something between 2♠ and 4NT would have helped. If systemically nothing between 2♠ and 4NT would help, then I'd consider scratching the systemic approach, unless there's a really good reason for it.

[jdonn]

cherdanno, on Feb 19 2010, 12:02 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 19 2010, 01:06 AM, said:

Of course I would have asked about partner's shape. But even given this auction I think 6♦ was a key error. Don't forget 5NT already shows all the keycards so if partner has a great source of tricks he will always bid a grand. To have a good grand you usually want partner to have a source of tricks, like either KQxx Kx xx KQxxx or KQxx KQJx xx Kxx. Bidding 6♦ invites him to bid a grand with less, like KQxx KQx xx Kxxx, because he has an extra trick.

(It's true that I would miss the grand with this suggestion if he has KQxx Kxx xx KQxx but it's marginal without one of the black jacks, and anyway there is a little bit of guesswork involved in which case stretching to bid close grands has proved to be a losing strategy.)

This 6♦ bid is similar to a complaint I often have about people playing last train. They just use it because it's there. Think about what you are showing and what partner will infer in these auctions and you will do much better, rather than "well a grand is still possible so I'll keep asking for kings."

It seems this partnership was playing spiral scan. Here asker is usually in control, and he is free to keep asking if, say, he knows one keycard is missing but he would like to decide between 6S and 6NT.
Of course, it doesn't really help your cause to mention a non-existing 5NT bid either

Anyway, the key mistake was obviously 4NT (ESPECIALLY if playing spiral scan in the style I am assuming).

Yes I have to rescind my point since in this case 6♦ was needed to confirm all the keycards. I still agree with my general point it just doesn't pertain to this hand. Anyway, for many of the same reasons, definitely 6♠ now.

[Hanoi5]

If I want to risk it I-d bid 7♠, but in a normal situation 6♠, ruffs might be neccessary.

[kenrexford]

As an additional concern, BTW, is this in this partnership a sequence where Opener has promised four spades?

I mean, Opener is known to have the KQ in spades, as well as the two rounded Kings. Could Opener have:

♠KQx ♥Kxxx ♦x ♣Kxxxx?

I mean, I could. That's another reason why I don't get 4NT. 4NT for me would promise five or more spades.

[fred]

kenrexford, on Feb 19 2010, 06:32 PM, said:

I mean, I could.  That's another reason why I don't get 4NT.  4NT for me would promise five or more spades.

I agree that 4NT was a poor call - bidding Blackwood prematurely when you have a lot of points and partner opens the bidding is a VERY common error. But your comment about 4NT promising 5 or more spades (for you) should be addressed...

According to basic bidding theory, all 4NT "promises" in an auction like this one is the ability to place the contract in the right spot after hearing how many Aces, Kings, etc. that partner was dealt.

No doubt your system dictates some reason for why responder must have 5 spades, but 4NT in "standard" is not in any way descriptive - it is purely a question. I am sure you know this, but I thought it smart to mention this point so that some of the less-experienced players reading this thread don't get confused.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[ArcLight]

2♠ does not always guarantee 4 spades.
Opener may have 3 spades and an unbalanced hand, maybe 3-(4-1)-5 3-(1-4)-5

Wait till you end up in 6 spades with 7 trumps.

So what would be the correct bid over 2♠ by opener?

3♦? Pard with 4 spades can then bid 3♠, or bid hearts asking for a heart stopper.

[fred]

ArcLight, on Feb 19 2010, 07:50 PM, said:

So what would be the correct bid over 2♠ by opener?

In the absense of any fancy system, 3C seems obvious to me (it is the cheapest forcing bid, you have 4-card support for partner's suit, partner's club holding will usually be critical, and clubs may be the best strain to play in).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[dcohio]

kenrexford, on Feb 19 2010, 01:32 PM, said:

As an additional concern, BTW, is this in this partnership a sequence where Opener has promised four spades?

I mean, Opener is known to have the KQ in spades, as well as the two rounded Kings.  Could Opener have:

♠KQx ♥Kxxx ♦x ♣Kxxxx?

I mean, I could.  That's another reason why I don't get 4NT.  4NT for me would promise five or more spades.

opener will always have 4 spades after 1♣-1♠-2♠. With <4 card support (and 11/12-14) opener would have bid 1 NT or 2c and responder could have used NMF to show 5 and inv+

My reason for bidding 4NT right away (this is a fairly new partnership) is that I'm not sure if partner would have taken any of the following bids: 2NT, 3NT, 3c, 4c as forcing. I did not want to see a pass card. We are playing 2/1 and are not in a game force after 1c-1s-2s, opener is limited to 12-14. I guess I could have bid 3d or 3h as a forcing call but then where do we go from there? The problem was that I had no way to tell partner I have serious slam intentions after this opening sequence. (Maybe I need to introduce serious 3NT?)

Partners hand:

KQxx KQx 9xx KJx

Lead is 8d to my J, spades split and after stripping down to clubs and watching discards the Q clubs is right... and doubleton. Field is playing 6NT+1, one pair in 6S+1.

[kenrexford]

fred, on Feb 19 2010, 02:07 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Feb 19 2010, 06:32 PM, said:

I mean, I could.  That's another reason why I don't get 4NT.  4NT for me would promise five or more spades.

I agree that 4NT was a poor call - bidding Blackwood prematurely when you have a lot of points and partner opens the bidding is a VERY common error. But your comment about 4NT promising 5 or more spades (for you) should be addressed...

According to basic bidding theory, all 4NT "promises" in an auction like this one is the ability to place the contract in the right spot after hearing how many Aces, Kings, etc. that partner was dealt.

No doubt your system dictates some reason for why responder must have 5 spades, but 4NT in "standard" is not in any way descriptive - it is purely a question. I am sure you know this, but I thought it smart to mention this point so that some of the less-experienced players reading this thread don't get confused.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

True point, technically. By "promises five spades" I really mean "is only plausibly bid if Responder has at least five spades." even then, I cannot ever imagine bidding 4NT over 2♠. It seems so wildly out of sync with how I bid that 4NT almost should have some sort of weird meaning attached, like Exclusion RKCB with a void in Opener's first suit (joking).