[Walddk]

Scoring: IMP

---

A deal from the US Open Trials yesterday. Since we still can't get access to the vugraph archives, I can't give you the spot cards, but they are irrelevant anyway.

Your partner opens a natural 1♣, RHO overcalls 2♥ (natural, weak), you bid 3♦ and lefty makes some noise with 3♥. Next comes 4NT by partner, RKC for diamonds.

5♠ by you (two KC's and ♦Q). Now 5NT from partner, grand slam try. Perhaps you think you have enough to bid the grand slam now, but you decide to bid 6♥ instead. The tray comes back to you with 6NT.

What do you do now? Pass or 7♦?

Roland

[cherdano]

I think 6♥ was a good bid, showing my bigger extra card and leaving the decision to partner. He could still bid 6♠ if just another useful card was enough to make 7.

[Walddk]

Jlall, on Jun 2 2008, 11:18 AM, said:

BTW: I also disagree with the categorization of 5N as "grand slam try." You are an unlimited hand so partner MUST bid 5N whenever you have all the keycards. It seems like a leading way to describe a 5N bid.

Well, according to the operator 5NT was explained as a grand slam try. What right do we have to question their methods whether we like them or not? You are entitled to disagree, but I feel that my way of describing the auction is fair.

I do not comment on what 5NT is or is not. Just like I refrain from commenting on 6♥.

This hand is posted to let the members judge based on the facts.

Roland

[rogerclee]

I would just pass. It sounds to me that partner is likely fishing for the ♣K; if my ♣Q were really that important to him, he had 6♣ available.

[Walddk]

Jlall, on Jun 2 2008, 12:12 PM, said:

Roland, let me ask you a serious yes/no question. Do you think that, when containing all keycards plus the trump queen, they ever bid anything other than 5N over the 5S bid?

And please, spare me the "I am just going off of what the vugraph operator said it was" stuff, you know perfectly well (as I do) that 5N is always the bid that would be made over 5S when they are in posession of all the KC + the trump queen.

Thus you should know that calling it a "grand slam try" is misleading. I do not disagree with their methods, I disagree with your wording of them, since we are both 100 % sure of the answer to my first question.

BTW I don't know this hand, am I right that there was a slow 6N then a pull?

I agree that it's normal to bid 5NT when you know that you are in possession of all keycards and trump queen. However, I disagree that that 'grand slam try' is misleading. If you can bid keycards opposite a hand that could be considerably weaker than this one, and you get a 5♠ response, a subsequent 5NT is obviously a grand slam try.

And yes, there was a huddle for a couple of minutes before the tray came back with 6NT ... unless the operator had fallen asleep for some reason. That I can't rule out, as is the case with the validity of the explanation at the table.

It's all hearsay; I wasn't at the playing site. I was merely watching a vugraph presentation along with 2,000 other spectators. I still believe that my interpretation of what I saw is descriptive.

Roland

[Walddk]

By now everyone has figured out that they reached 7♦ and that it was cold. David Burn said something very interesting. Perhaps you should have written a note to your screenmate after your 6♥ with 'I am going to bid a grand slam no matter how long it takes for the tray to come back' if that is your intention.

Again it's hearsay when I write that after the hand the player in question told his LHO that 6♥ was an attempt to get to 7NT if partner could bid 7♣. The director was summoned (a fact), but I do not know the ruling and I do not know if there was an appeal.

Roland

[1eyedjack]

I would bid 7.
Q of Clubs is a good card that I haven't yet shown.
If partner has the J of Clubs this could be on a finesse. Not good enough, I know, but a sight bettern than 0%.
If the Clubs are not running we might not even have enough for 6N.

[Walddk]

I believe we had a similar situation, albeit a little more complex, in the Danish playoffs a couple of months ago. Maybe Michael Askgaard (MFA) can shed some light on the issue.

Roland

[Edmunte1]

I would have bid 7, but i would consider pass a logical alternative if i would be in a jury.

[FrancesHinden]

I agree with Justin. I wouldn't bid 7D here anyway, and you definitely can't if partner's 6NT is obviously extremely slow.

Think about the auction

Opener opens.
Responder shows an unlimited hand with long diamonds.

Opener now takes control and bids Blackwood. He has no idea what responder's hand looks like other than it's a game force with diamonds.

Opener gets an answer to Blackwood, and now doesn't know what to do with it, so instead he starts asking responder's opinion. That's just bad captaincy. If you take control with Blackwood, you should know what do to with the answer.

So if partner is a good player (and if he's at this stage in the US trials he probably is), then that's not the way he would bid. Instead, he knows what it is he needs to make a grand slam and he's asking if you have it. It really sounds as if it's the CK he's after... how about

Kx
A
AJxx
A109xxx

?

(I'm not sure he was really hoping for a 6H bid from us, probably expecting either 6C or 6D).

[Vilgan]

If there was a long hesitation, returning it to 6NT seems like the correct director decision.

[MFA]

Walddk, on Jun 2 2008, 07:15 AM, said:

I believe we had a similar situation, albeit a little more complex, in the Danish playoffs a couple of months ago. Maybe Michael Askgaard (MFA) can shed some light on the issue.

Roland

Yes we did, Roland. But I think it's only on the surface that the two situations are similar.

In the Danish playoffs it went

4NT (RKC for ♣) - 5♠
5NT - (huddle) 6♣
6♦! - 7♣
7NT

So it's not quite the same, because it's perfectly logical that a 5NT'er can bid again below 6NT, when he can see the same 12 tricks in suitplay and in notrumps - giving his partner a chance to produce the last one.

In this thread's board it's not logical that the grand slam invitee suddenly "accepts his own invitation", when partner has declined with 6NT. The indications of taking advantage of partner's thinking are very strong.
So as it has been posted here, I think it's clearcut that bidding 7 after partner's huddle is illegal. It takes a crystal clear 7♦ bid to be allowed in this situation, I think. And the actual hand is not close to that.

[jdonn]

Walddk, on Jun 2 2008, 07:08 AM, said:

David Burn said something very interesting. Perhaps you should have written a note to your screenmate after your 6♥ with 'I am going to bid a grand slam no matter how long it takes for the tray to come back' if that is your intention.

This idea has been thought of by many people over time, including me, but I believe such a note has no legal standing. Let us say that your opponent wrote you such a note, then passed anyway when 6NT came back (they tell you they changed their mind). What would be your recourse?

As for the original question, I would have bid 7♦ over 6NT and can't imagine there is any real alternative. What hand does partner have with no king of clubs? And even if such a hand exists, it's both extremely unlikely and you probably have reasonable play anyway. I see the post's have a lot of passers so surely the correct ruling is this player has to pass if there was a hesitation, even though I know I wouldn't have. (I guess it's too strong of me to say I "can't imagine")

I also disagree that I should just bid 7♦ over 5NT if I'm always bidding a grand. 7NT may well be safer, and scores better in any case. Why should I have to make my score worse when it's my partner's job to have planned ahead before bidding 5NT?

[Walddk]

Jlall, on Jun 4 2008, 12:12 PM, said:

So what was the result of this ruling, and which players were involved (if anyone knows)?

I don't know the ruling, but I know that Rosenberg had the hand that bid 7♦ over 6NT. Was against Spector in the quarter-finals (Wolpert - Spector were EW at this table).

Roland

[Walddk]

Scoring: IMP

---

Clubs were 2-4, and 7♦ made.

Roland

[Walddk]

Jlall, on Jun 4 2008, 12:47 PM, said:

Well, I would be very surprised if a committee allowed the 7D bid, feel pretty strongly about that.

By the way, I am beginning to realise that 5NT is not necessarily a grand slam try and agree with you. I guess Rosenberg would also have bid 3♦ on

Axx
xx
KQ10xxx
xx

Opposite that hand even 6♦ is no bargain. It's actually pretty poor. Then one can ask the question if Zia's 4NT was too aggressive. If yes, what should he have bid? Double?

Roland