[kfay]

AJxx AK8x xx AJx

r/r Partner opens

1♣*-1♥
1NT*-2♦**
2♥-2♠
2NT-?

1♣=2+
1NT=15-17
2♦=art. GF

Partner has <4♠, 3♥ exactly

[gwnn]

6n

[pooltuna]

gwnn, on May 14 2010, 10:42 AM, said:

6n

yes but after 1NT not 2NT

[Phil]

pooltuna, on May 14 2010, 11:29 AM, said:

gwnn, on May 14 2010, 10:42 AM, said:

6n

yes but after 1NT not 2NT

?

I would bet that 1N can conceal a 4 card spade suit. I would also be interested in a 7♣ contract if partner has 5.

[bluecalm]

My intuition tells me 4NT is right.
Simulation tells me that 6NT is making 72% of the time opposite exactly 15 balanced with 2-3♠ - 3♥ and no 6card suit. I am not sure how reliable it is in slams. I guess not very (slam more often depends on guessing something right than making right first lead).

Overall. I bid 4NT but I imagine I could be easily convinced other way.

EDIT: Even if partner has exactly 15hcp without 5card suit the slam is still making 71% of the time. Hmm....

Some generated hands where slam is making:

KT9 QJ6 AKT Q432 ; do you want to be there ?
KQ4 JT6 AQ64 K72 ; definitely not
K2 Q92 AQJ9 KT98 ; again no ?
Q52 QJ6 AK9 K752 ; not !

After reviewing some more hands I definitely don't bid 6NT.

[mikeh]

I don't see many hands on which 7♣ is a good contract....Kx Qxx AQx KQxxx isn't enough to make it sound, and change his diamonds to AK, and he might have rebid 2N...not to mention Kxx or Qxx in spades or Jxx or xxx in hearts, and so on.

I think that most grand slam layouts require 3=3=2=5 shape over there, and my shape reduces the a priori odds of that: plus I can't think of any sequence that would let me work that out, or allow him to realize that I need that shape. After all, if I now bid clubs, he'll place me with short(ish) diamonds and won't realize I need him to be short there as well.

And I don't think that there are many hands on which 6♣ is sufficiently better than 6N so as to warrant a slow, informative auction, at the cost of letting the opps defend almost double-dummy, and at the cost of 2 imps. I bid the simple 6N that I think rates to make far more often than not.

[kfay]

bluecalm, on May 14 2010, 12:10 PM, said:

My intuition tells me 4NT is right.
Simulation tells me that 6NT is making 72% of the time opposite exactly 15 balanced with 2-3♠ - 3♥ and no 6card suit. I am not sure how reliable it is in slams. I guess not very (slam more often depends on guessing something right than making right first lead).

Overall. I bid 4NT but I imagine I could be easily convinced other way.

EDIT: Even if partner has exactly 15hcp without 5card suit the slam is still making 71% of the time. Hmm....

Some generated hands where slam is making:

KT9 QJ6 AKT Q432 ; do you want to be there ?
KQ4 JT6 AQ64 K72 ; definitely not
K2 Q92 AQJ9 KT98 ; again no ?
Q52 QJ6 AK9 K752 ; not !

After reviewing some more hands I definitely don't bid 6NT.

Thanks for this.

I guarantee you at this point partner has no 6-card suit and, in fact, most likely no 5-card suit.

[gszeszycki]

just short of bidding 6 outright so i will bid 3d for now then convert the probable 3n to 4s making a mild slam try and pinpointing my club concern and i will not try 6n but 6s

[Phil]

mikeh, on May 14 2010, 12:38 PM, said:

I don't see many hands on which 7♣ is a good contract.

I was specifically thinking about Qx Qxx AKx KQxxx where we need a 3-3 or a hook. Perhaps unrealistic.

I hope you would agree that partner can have four spades depending on their agreements.

[ArtK78]

I play a gadget on auctions where 4♠ cannot be a natural call (and even though I bid 2♠ on this auction, 4♠ cannot be natural here).

4♠ = weaker invitation to 6NT (accept only with a maximum)
4NT = stronger invitation to 6NT (decline only with a minimum)

I would bid 4NT on this hand, expecting partner to decline only on a minimum 1NT rebid.

[mikeh]

Phil, on May 14 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

mikeh, on May 14 2010, 12:38 PM, said:

I don't see many hands on which 7♣ is a good contract.

I was specifically thinking about Qx Qxx AKx KQxxx where we need a 3-3 or a hook. Perhaps unrealistic.

I hope you would agree that partner can have four spades depending on their agreements.

I didn't say I couldn't see any hands...I just couldn't see many, and none on which bidding a tenuous grand made sense. Some posters didn't even force to slam! Now, everyone invited, so when grand is good, they'd reach small, I suppose....but your example hand only has one Ace (which doesn't surprise any of us, I guess ...so who knows if this hand should or would even accept over 4N.....it goes to show why one should not stretch to bid grands in most fields.

I agree that neither 1N nor 2♥ denied 4 spades (in my preferred methods...but we need the OP to tell us about his), but 2N surely did

[dburn]

kfay, on May 14 2010, 10:35 AM, said:

AJxx AK8x xx AJx

r/r Partner opens

1♣*-1♥
1NT*-2♦**
2♥-2♠
2NT-?

1♣=2+
1NT=15-17
2♦=art. GF

Partner has <4♠, 3♥ exactly

3♣ for the moment. Our best slam (whether six or seven) might be in clubs even when partner only has four. Silly to commit to notrump at this point. Which minor would partner open with four cards in both, by the way?

[MarkDean]

Agree with dburn.

[kfay]

dburn, on May 14 2010, 10:41 PM, said:

kfay, on May 14 2010, 10:35 AM, said:

AJxx AK8x xx AJx

r/r Partner opens

1♣*-1♥
1NT*-2♦**
2♥-2♠
2NT-?

1♣=2+
1NT=15-17
2♦=art. GF

Partner has <4♠, 3♥ exactly

3♣ for the moment. Our best slam (whether six or seven) might be in clubs even when partner only has four. Silly to commit to notrump at this point. Which minor would partner open with four cards in both, by the way?

w/ a non-11/14NT partner opens 1♣ always (could have 5♦ + 2♣!!!)

[jdonn]

I bid 4NT which by the way doesn't commit us to notrump. I think partner has denied 5 clubs unless they are pretty bad although it's still a fair point that a 4-3 club fit might be best. Like xxx QJx AKx KQTx would be a pretty sweet 6♣.

[Fluffy]

has partner denied 5 clubs or....

I think I'd start with 3♣ anyway.