[nekthen]

rhm, on 2017-June-26, 02:38, said:

Which ton of unambiguously forcing bids at lower levels did partner have?
This was not an everyday standard sequence where most partnership have clear agreements what subsequent bids would show.
Say partner bids 3♥, because he wants to make a nice forcing, much lower level bid over 3♦.
You find your next bid, say 4♦ and partner now bids 6♣, because he can not find another clearly forcing bid.
What will the partnership have gained in this case?

Rainer Herrmann

Partner now knows you are 5 - 6 in the minors. Before he knew you were 4-5. If you had bid 4♣, presumably he could now rkcb for ♣

Back to the actual bidding. It seems likely that partner wanted to bid RKCB for clubs because he is missing the KQ. It seems like Easts bid has made it impossible to set the suit as clubs and force. Unless you have an agreement that an immediate 4♥ is rkcb in ♣ I see no solution except the random 3♥ force. I expect partner has Axxxx, KQxx(x),(x) , Axx and it seems like I want to be in 7♣, partner may even convert to 7N with the right hand

[Cyberyeti]

rhm, on 2017-June-26, 02:38, said:

Which ton of unambiguously forcing bids at lower levels did partner have?
This was not an everyday standard sequence where most partnership have clear agreements what subsequent bids would show.
Say partner bids 3♥, because he wants to make a nice forcing, much lower level bid over 3♦.
You find your next bid, say 4♦ and partner now bids 6♣, because he can not find another clearly forcing bid.
What will the partnership have gained in this case?

Rainer Herrmann

Partner bids 3♥, say you bid 3N rather than 4♦ (prob not on this hand), he bids 4♣ forcing, he's gained a lot, hence you can rule out the hands where that would benefit him, it restricts the hands he can hold for the initial 6♣ bid.

[GrahamJson]

My guess is that partner holds something like Axxxxx KQx void Axxx. He can deduce from East's bid that you have at most one spade but can't come me up with a sensible cue bidding sequence for fear it might be misunderstood (e.d a bid of 4C being passed out). Given that I hold all the outstanding key cards it must be worth bidding seven, unless you playing in a field in which a small slam always gets an 80% or over score.

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-June-26, 04:17, said:

Partner bids 3♥, say you bid 3N rather than 4♦

I think there is a good chance partner cam guess we have spade shortness, or at least no stopper.

[forgo]

this is easy.... 7 clubs!! u did say a competent partner,

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2017-June-26, 14:40, said:

I think there is a good chance partner cam guess we have spade shortness, or at least no stopper.

Partner who'd already bid spades so is not going to take me for a spade stop would be asking me for a heart stop

[gszes]

you cant let hands like this cause you stomach problems. P bid 6c missing the heart ace Dia AQ and club KQ if you do not belong in 7 they misbid their hand. go with the flow and trust partner. worst case scenario you have a chat and try to discuss with p the reasons for NOT arbitrarily leaping to 6 that way.

[miamijd]

I don't understand partner's jump to 6C. Seems to me he had a lot of other descriptive alternatives available. That being said, his possible holdings make 7 either (A) a good bet or (B) more or less cold. I'd bid 7 unless the field was so weak that I thought at least half the field wouldn't reach six (and that would be a pretty weak field indeed).

Cheers,
Mike

[nige1]

rhm, on 2017-June-26, 02:38, said:

Which ton of unambiguously forcing bids at lower levels did partner have?This was not an everyday standard sequence where most partnership have clear agreements what subsequent bids would show.Say partner bids 3♥, because he wants to make a nice forcing, much lower level bid over 3♦. You find your next bid, say 4♦ and partner now bids 6♣, because he can not find another clearly forcing bid. What will the partnership have gained in this case?

Rainer makes sense to me. In this unusual auction what bids are forcing? and what do they mean?

In his book on slam-bidding, Hugh Kelsey warns against the perils of daisy-picking.

Partner might judge that a hesitant constructive auction allows opponents to double for the lead, leaks (mis?)information, risks ethical problems, and leaves neither of you much the wiser. He might as well bite the bullet and take his best guess. Holding say
♠ A x x x x ♥ K Q x ♦ - ♣ A J x x x

Andrew Robson advises against bidding grands, but I think you should risk it here with
♠ - ♥ A x ♦ A Q x x x ♣ K Q x x x x

[shyams]

North was GIB as were East & West. This was a hand from Robot Rebate 55%.

At the table, I thought about it, chickened out and passed. I scored ~60% on the board but I really felt bad that I did not bid the grand -- which scores 100%! North had ♠J9xx ♥Q ♦Kxxx ♣Axxx so 13 tricks were at risk only if West had ♦J10xx and East had ♦-.

I occasionally complain about GIB's bidding, but this one I thought was a very creative and good bid.

[el mister]

shyams, on 2017-June-27, 10:37, said:

North was GIB as were East & West. This was a hand from Robot Rebate 55%.

At the table, I thought about it, chickened out and passed. I scored ~60% on the board but I really felt bad that I did not bid the grand -- which scores 100%! North had ♠J9xx ♥Q ♦Kxxx ♣Axxx so 13 tricks were at risk only if West had ♦J10xx and East had ♦-.

I occasionally complain about GIB's bidding, but this one I thought was a very creative and good bid.

GIB would have raised 6 to 7 for a certainty, had your seats being swapped. Or at least that's often been my experience with blasting game / slam opposite GIB. Think you can make 6? Why not try 7 lol.