[Echognome]

1♦ - 1♠
1NT(1) - 3♠(2)
?

---

(1) Artificial, shows a good hand of 16+ points. (Think Gazilli)
(2) 6+♠, good suit

I'm trying not to bring system into this, but of course it has some bearing. You can think of an equivalent problem in your own systems. Here partner could have bid 2♣ over your 1NT bid to find out more, but has chosen to emphasize his own suit. For what it's worth, your 1♦ opening showed 4+ and since you did not splinter or make a direct raise, your artificial 1NT shows that you have 5+♦. Finally 3♠ "sets" spades. So here are your options:

3NT Non-serious slam try for ♠
4♣ Serious slam try for ♠, shows 1st/2nd round control
4♦ Serious slam try for ♠, shows 2/3 top ♦ honors
4♠ To play
4NT RKCB
5♣ EKCB

Can't think of any other viable alternatives. What do you think is the best plan of attack from here? What are your continuations over partner's likely responses?

[jdonn]

Not thinking about it too deeply, I would bid 4♦ if that does not deny club control, but 4♣ if 4♦ would deny a club control. Signing off and non-serious slam try are ridiculous when all partner needs is ace or king of hearts for slam (on top of the good spade suit already shown), but taking control when we could be off the first 3 heart tricks seems silly.

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Nov 14 2007, 03:08 PM, said:

Not thinking about it too deeply, I would bid 4♦ if that does not deny club control, but 4♣ if 4♦ would deny a club control. Signing off and non-serious slam try are ridiculous when all partner needs is ace or king of hearts for slam (on top of the good spade suit already shown), but taking control when we could be off the first 3 heart tricks seems silly.

I just put in all the options I could think of to be complete. What will you do over 4♥ from partner? What will you do over 4♠ from partner?

[han]

How strong is 3S?

[Echognome]

Hannie, on Nov 14 2007, 03:26 PM, said:

How strong is 3S?

It's just GF given my 1NT response. Could be as weak as AQJxxx and out.

[han]

Would partner "set" spades with AQJxxx and out?

I like the 6H suggestion but at the table I would probably bid 4C.

[Echognome]

Hannie, on Nov 14 2007, 03:32 PM, said:

Would partner "set" spades with AQJxxx and out?

I like the 6H suggestion but at the table I would probably bid 4C.

Well I don't know. I'm can only tell you what the agreements are. It's GF, sets spades and it's opposite what I've shown.

[pclayton]

We have different criteria, but in this instance the suit should be playable opposite a void for one loser maximum.

I think KQJTxx would be a minimum.

[mikeh]

4♣ looks normal to me, even tho I rarely (and I mean rarely) make my first cue in a void. I could try 4♦ and then, over 4♥, bid 5♣. But after 4♣ 4♥, I'll keycard... I assume partner wouldn't be setting spades as trump with a suit such as Axxxxx, and even on that I have a play for 7 opposite Axxxxx Axx x xxx.

I can't bid 4♦ and then keycard.

If he doesn't bid 4♥, I'll respect 4♠, and bid 4♠ over an unlikely 4♦.

I will have made my slam try and if he can't make an effort, then I ain't risking the 5-level opposite AQJ1098 xxx x xxx.....

[Echognome]

mikeh, on Nov 14 2007, 03:59 PM, said:

4♣ looks normal to me, even tho I rarely (and I mean rarely) make my first cue in a void. I could try 4♦ and then, over 4♥, bid 5♣. But after 4♣ 4♥, I'll keycard... I assume partner wouldn't be setting spades as trump with a suit such as Axxxxx, and even on that I have a play for 7 opposite Axxxxx Axx x xxx.

I can't bid 4♦ and then keycard.

If he doesn't bid 4♥, I'll respect 4♠, and bid 4♠ over an unlikely 4♦.

I will have made my slam try and if he can't make an effort, then I ain't risking the 5-level opposite AQJ1098 xxx x xxx.....

Phil mentioned the minimum suit quality above. I was incorporating that we held the ♠K already, so AQJxxx is likely.

Also, we don't cue shortness is partner's known 5+ suit (for better or worse), so you won't be hearing a 4♦ bid on this auction. That much is guaranteed.

[whereagles]

Echo: your 'mad scientist' methods struck gold here. You have an easy 4♣ bid and it should go....

4♣ 4♥
5♣ 5♥
7♠

5♣ = can't RKCB on a void..
5♥ = confirms 1st round control of hearts

If pard fails to bid 4♥: then stop at 4♠. If he fails to bid 5♥, then bid 6♠.

Finally, if you're not in the mood for science, bid a fake 4♥ cue and follow up with 7♠. Alternatively, you can bid a direct 7♠....

[brianshark]

Just bid 4♣. Cue-bidding will extract the required info from partner without going higher than is safe.

[FrancesHinden]

My first-round-control-bidding-life this is much simpler.
I bid 4C, cue bid for spades.
If partner bids 4H, I bid 7S.
If partner bids 4S, I bid 5D and he'll get the idea I need a heart cue.

If he has 3 low hearts I'll be off at the 5-level.

[hrothgar]

Echognome, on Nov 15 2007, 01:55 AM, said:

1♦ - 1♠
1NT(1) - 3♠(2)
?

---

(1) Artificial, shows a good hand of 16+ points. (Think Gazilli)
(2) 6+♠, good suit

I'm trying not to bring system into this, but of course it has some bearing. You can think of an equivalent problem in your own systems. Here partner could have bid 2♣ over your 1NT bid to find out more, but has chosen to emphasize his own suit. For what it's worth, your 1♦ opening showed 4+ and since you did not splinter or make a direct raise, your artificial 1NT shows that you have 5+♦. Finally 3♠ "sets" spades. So here are your options:

3NT Non-serious slam try for ♠
4♣ Serious slam try for ♠, shows 1st/2nd round control
4♦ Serious slam try for ♠, shows 2/3 top ♦ honors
4♠ To play
4NT RKCB
5♣ EKCB

Can't think of any other viable alternatives. What do you think is the best plan of attack from here? What are your continuations over partner's likely responses?

I like Justin's 5♥ suggestion (doubt that I would have thought of this at the table)
Absent this, I like Frances's sequences

[skjaeran]

Jlall, on Nov 15 2007, 12:12 AM, said:

Depends who opps are. Against people who think and stuff I'd prob go 5H then 7S opp 1+Q. Against bad opps I would just go 4C

Partly agree with this. Certainly the 4♣ vs bad opps part.
Against people who think etc I'd do mixed strategy here, sometimes 5♥, sometimes 4♣.
The fake void splinter/EKCB is a well-known strategy, btw.

[cherdano]

Assuming I am not in the mood for 5♥, I would bid 4♣. I think this is clearly superior to 4♦. Partner will be worried about cooperating for slam when he doesn't have a single diamond honor. 4♣ allows him to cooperate with 4♥ while denying a diamond honor. I would pass 4♠.

[pclayton]

A direct 7♠ is also an option. How often have we seen these types of hands turning into 4 / 5 or 7?