[Phil]

Matchpoints.

♠Qxx ♥AKQx ♦Axx ♣Kxx

1♣ - 1♥
3♥ - 3♠
4♣ - 4♦
4N - 5♣ (1 / 4)
?

[JLOL]

You have to bid hearts, for all you know partner has cuebid a stiff spade or w/e.

[rogerclee]

Even if I knew partner had a high spade honor, I would bid 6♥.

[jdonn]

6♥. But it sure would be nice to have a choice of slams bid here, which I'm fairly sure Meckwell has, but no one else in particular that I know of even though there are probably some others.

[TimG]

Wouldn't it have been better to bid 5♣ instead of 4N? That way, partner (who knows whether his spade control is high card or shortness) would be in the decision making seat. Though I suppose your failure to splinter should let partner know that 6N is a viable option when his spade control is a high card control -- if you bid 6♥ now, partner is not barred from converting, is he?

[Fluffy]

was 3♥ forcing?

[Phil]

I had considered a stiff spade; but then what is pard making a slam try on off the ♥AKQ and another A? x, JTxxxx, KQx, Axx? I suppose it's possible, but seemed remote.

OK, fast forward to pard's hand. He had AKx T9xx Kx QJ9x. Even if you could see this in advance, would you choose 6N? Would he choose 6N over 6♥ anyway?

Quote

Tim said: Wouldn't it have been better to bid 5♣ instead of 4N? That way, partner (who knows whether his spade control is high card or shortness) would be in the decision making seat.

I would be very concerned that pard would cooperate missing all the trump honors.

Quote

And continued: Though I suppose your failure to splinter should let partner know that 6N is a viable option when his spade control is a high card control -- if you bid 6♥ now, partner is not barred from converting, is he?

I think its quite possible we have shortness. I could easily have spade shortness (although I'd mini-splinter with diamond shortness)

Quote

Josh: 6♥. But it sure would be nice to have a choice of slams bid here, which I'm fairly sure Meckwell has, but no one else in particular that I know of even though there are probably some others.

I wonder how they accomplish this. If 6♥ is a choice of slams, what is their mechanism to simply sign off in 6♥?

[helene_t]

Phil, on Feb 12 2009, 06:10 PM, said:

I wonder how they accomplish this. If 6♥ is a choice of slams, what is their mechanism to simply sign off in 6♥?

Couldn't 5♠ or 5NT be choice-of-slam?

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Feb 12 2009, 12:17 PM, said:

Phil, on Feb 12 2009, 06:10 PM, said:

I wonder how they accomplish this. If 6♥ is a choice of slams, what is their mechanism to simply sign off in 6♥?

Couldn't 5♠ or 5NT be choice-of-slam?

Yes some bid that is not 6♥ is used as a choice of slams. It's probably some 6 level bid that most would use as a grand slam try but I would say is much more useful as choice of slams. Of course you have to know exactly what you're doing, it's a very high level to have a misunderstanding.

[kenrexford]

A partner of mine suggested an excellent tool here. If five-level calls in a sequence like this do not make sense as Exclusion (obvious here) or as specific side-control asking bids, or as normal cues, then have a two-way approach to asking bids.

In some sequences, this would mean that 4NT is RKCB but 5+ plus instead are answers to RKCB as if partner had bid 4NT, yielding and showing.

In this sequence, you could also have 4NT ask but 4♠ demand asking, accomplishing the same goal. I think Fred mentioned something like that at some point.

[orlam]

Phil, on Feb 12 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

Quote

Tim said: Wouldn't it have been better to bid 5♣ instead of 4N? That way, partner (who knows whether his spade control is high card or shortness) would be in the decision making seat.

I would be very concerned that pard would cooperate missing all the trump honors.

But you are forcing to slam anyway, aren't you? I suppose you knew already before 4N that partner has a keycard, he wouldn't make two slam tries without one? So I don't understand the problem with bidding 5♦.

[Phil]

orlam, on Feb 12 2009, 12:38 PM, said:

Phil, on Feb 12 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

Quote

Tim said: Wouldn't it have been better to bid 5♣ instead of 4N? That way, partner (who knows whether his spade control is high card or shortness) would be in the decision making seat.

I would be very concerned that pard would cooperate missing all the trump honors.

But you are forcing to slam anyway, aren't you? I suppose you knew already before 4N that partner has a keycard, he wouldn't make two slam tries without one? So I don't understand the problem with bidding 5♦.

Of course I am, but we might not get anything useful from pard except 5♥.

I'd also be worried about missing a good grand if I bid 5♣.

[mike777]

6h

I expect bidding any slam at MP to be good.

At this point 5d is queen ask and any other bid is a grand slam try.

[neilkaz]

mike777, on Feb 12 2009, 02:43 PM, said:

6h

I expect bidding any slam at MP to be good.

At this point 5d is queen ask and any other bid is a grand slam try.

Yes, but an experienced steady MP pair should have a method to ask PD whether he wants to bid 6♥ or 6NT since at MP the difference could be substantial.

Lacking that, just bid 6♥ and PD can correct if he wants.

[mikeh]

1. 6♥. We have almost no idea what partner's hand looks like, and I think that it is losing bridge to take a flier at a 'top' when we are guessing.

2. Isn't is a sad comment on standard bridge that we can have an uncontested constructive slam auction and have so little idea of what partner's hand looks like.. and he is in almost the same position?

3. As for choice of slam, I really don't think that this is so esoteric as some have suggested. It does require a minor modification of method.. one that many pairs of far lower stature than Meckwell already use: reverse the meaning of 4♠ and 4N: use kickback. Now 4♠ is keycard, and this leaves 5N as above the usual next ask (queen of king) and thus it is available for its most common modern use: choice of slams.

[mike777]

Using 4s as kickback is fine......but 5nt over response often needs to be reserved as K of S, grand try, all keys promised. 5s=specific K ask, grand try, all keys promised.

[Fluffy]

The problem is, partner has no idea that we are not not 5431 14-16 instead of 18 balanced. And it will be very hard to make him believe it that way.