[Impact]

Easy 5D as I have extras and partner showed a minor GF.

Agree with Ulf that opener is likely to be looking for grand.

BTW I hate this natural style of response to 2C GF....but that is a separate issue, and I cannot help but wonder what my 4D over 3C would have shown....I really like the idea of expressing my hand in 2 bids: the natural S bid and then the splinter over 3C so that then I have said my piece (subject to whetehr my S could be substantially weaker).

I am troubled that no one else mentioned the possibility of the splinter over 3C...

regards

[benlessard]

i don`t think partner 4nt is showing a limited slam interest (maybe he looking for 6 or 7 all along) so i bid 5♦ keeping grand in the picture. If 4nt is for 5 or 6 then i bid 6♣. I don`think my 5♦ compromise me too much.

Ps when i bid 7 i like them to be icy and cold.

[cherdano]

Ulf's point is a good one obviously but on reflection I disagree, in the sense that I prefer 4N to be exactly invitational to 6. With both hands unlimited, I think at some point you just have to make a value bid. (Of course partner is free to fake 4N if he is trying for 7 and exactly the hands that accept a try for 6 will make 7 good but that's his problem.)
If you don't make a value bid at some point, it just seems impossible to me to sort out our overall combined strength.

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Aug 22 2007, 01:36 AM, said:

Ulf's point is a good one obviously but on reflection I disagree, in the sense that I prefer 4N to be exactly invitational to 6. With both hands unlimited, I think at some point you just have to make a value bid. (Of course partner is free to fake 4N if he is trying for 7 and exactly the hands that accept a try for 6 will make 7 good but that's his problem.)
If you don't make a value bid at some point, it just seems impossible to me to sort out our overall combined strength.

That was a much clearer way of stating what I was trying to say, or ask, above.

[ulven]

This is a matter of cuebidding style and preferences, and everyone picks what suits them best, theorethically sound or not.

To my mind, there's no "flaw" as Josh puts it in my reasoning but I don't have the time or will to expound on all aspects of this now, especially the value bid reasoning put forth by cherdano. I'm not ignorant of that and it's not impossible.

I don't play 4NT as DI but see no problem in having 4NT as possibly inviting the grand. As for responder's ambitions, quoting myself "With a hand with real grandslam interest, I might have bid RKC instead of 4S. " The hand that would seek cooperation for grand vs a hand that invited 6 is very unlikely to have bid 4S the previous bidding round in my methodology. This may sound strange but if we start pouring out example hands, it would be easier to see.

"How do you differentiate the fact that you only have grand slam interest opposite his second hand type from a stronger responding hand that has grand slam interest opposite the first hand type?" Exactly what kind of info are you trying to extract at this point? Sometimes someone has to take responsebility for making a decision. We can't kick the ball around at midfield forever. You can always use 5NT after 5D as a way to state that you want to cooperate if partner is looking for grand...

[FrancesHinden]

Impact, on Aug 22 2007, 01:35 AM, said:

I cannot help but wonder what my 4D over 3C would have shown....I really like the idea of expressing my hand in 2 bids: the natural S bid and then the splinter over 3C so that then I have said my piece (subject to whetehr my S could be substantially weaker).

I am troubled that no one else mentioned the possibility of the splinter over 3C...

I did in the original post, I said that we prefer a splinter to promise 4 trumps.
This is s theoretical point worth some debate, but at the table it was our agreement so 4D was not possible.

[FrancesHinden]

---

The 5♦ bidders get to grand, everyone else plays in a small slam.
Partner's 4NT bid was the only bid he could find that clearly focussed attention on a second round red suit control.

In practice, if you think about it, it's a very rare 2C opening bid that is going to pass 5C after i) making a game forcing opening (and we keep them up to strength), ii) hearing a positive and iii) hearing of club support opposite. I suppose it's just possible, but it's actually much more likely that 4NT is looking for a grand than for the small slam.

I copped out at the table and bid 6♣ over 4NT, worried that partner might think I had more for a 5♦ bid. But I've been persuaded that is wimpish and 5♦ is the correct call. After....5♦ - 5♥ - 5NT (spade cue) partner has an easy 7♣ bid.

This was a flat board after a 1-level opening at the other table (in fact, I think this is the match cardsharp and his partner had these hands at the other table).

[paulg]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 27 2007, 05:47 PM, said:

This was a flat board after a 1-level opening at the other table (in fact, I think this is the match cardsharp and his partner had these hands at the other table).

Yes, one of our team mates is still asking how we missed the grand.

Paul

[Walddk]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 27 2007, 06:47 PM, said:

---

The 5♦ bidders get to grand, everyone else plays in a small slam.
Partner's 4NT bid was the only bid he could find that clearly focussed attention on a second round red suit control.

In practice, if you think about it, it's a very rare 2C opening bid that is going to pass 5C after i) making a game forcing opening (and we keep them up to strength), ii) hearing a positive and iii) hearing of club support opposite. I suppose it's just possible, but it's actually much more likely that 4NT is looking for a grand than for the small slam.

I copped out at the table and bid 6♣ over 4NT, worried that partner might think I had more for a 5♦ bid. But I've been persuaded that is wimpish and 5♦ is the correct call. After....5♦ - 5♥ - 5NT (spade cue) partner has an easy 7♣ bid.

This was a flat board after a 1-level opening at the other table (in fact, I think this is the match cardsharp and his partner had these hands at the other table).

I think 4NT is brilliant in context. North needs a red suit second round control because he knows that he can't set up spades. How lucky that you had 4NT available as a waiting bid.

One could argue of course that a jump to 6♣ does show extras of some kind (5♣ if one has nothing more to add), but I am sure that the 6♣ bidders did not have that in mind when they jumped. Because if they had, it can't cost to show the diamond control en route.

Roland