[1eyedjack]

Scoring: IMP

N....E....S....W
1♠..4♣..X....P
5♠..P....?

---

Hopefully you agree with the initial double. Now what?

[rogerclee]

I would try with 6♥, seems good enough.

[mtvesuvius]

6♥ for me also... I really don't see much rush to get to 6♠, 6♥ can only help partner.

[Free]

Pass

[gnasher]

What does 6♥ mean?

[skjaeran]

6♠, the practical bid, what I believe we can make.

[mtvesuvius]

Maybe I'm dreaming, but what if partner has something like AQxxxxx xx AKJ A, or would that not be a 5♠ bid?

[inquiry]

gnasher, on May 23 2009, 09:34 AM, said:

What does 6♥ mean?

5♠ should set trumps, therefore 6♥ is a grand slam try showing heart control and importantly denying a club one.

[gnasher]

If 6♥ is just the lowest first-round control, I don't see much point. He's never going to work out that AQJ10xxx Jx Ax Ax is worth 7♥ but AQJ10xxx xx Ax Ax isn't. Anyway, I can think of several alternative meanings for 6♥, so I'd never risk it without discussion. I bid 6♠.

[PFormaini]

gnasher:

Why would anyone in their right mind bid 5♠ with EITHER of those hands? Partner has promised only some constructive values - not the Moon. Why would partner not merely cue bid 5♣ to indicate slam interest and go on from there?

Under the circumstances - partner must be showing a hand just shy of a 2♣ opening with first round control of BOTH majors. Else why not cue bid and start looking for controls?

GIven that conclusion, I think 7♠ is called for. And if partner is off an Ace (especially the club Acr), rake them over the coals.

Note that partner CANNOT be saying that he has 11 sure tricks in spades and is merely asking about Club control. Your holding the K♠ negates this theory.

[rogerclee]

gnasher, on May 23 2009, 10:35 AM, said:

If 6♥ is just the lowest first-round control, I don't see much point.  He's never going to work out that AQJ10xxx Jx Ax Ax is worth 7♥ but AQJ10xxx xx Ax Ax isn't.  Anyway, I can think of several alternative meanings for 6♥, so I'd never risk it without discussion.  I bid 6♠.

I think that if 6♥ were unambiguously a try for 7♠ with no first round club or diamond control, it would be rather obvious to bid it. Maybe partner wouldn't always get it right (as in your example), but partner would certainly bid 7♠ making a lot more than 7♠ down 1, and I think the extra information to the opponents (so they will beat 6♠ after 6♥-6♠ but not after a direct 6♠) is not worth very much on this particular hand.

I agree with your second point, though, and think at the table it is losing bridge to try a bid like 6♥, so now I think 6♠ is better.

[1eyedjack]

Thanks for the views. I threw in 6♥ as an optional GST in Spades as a bit of an afterthought, as my principal concern was the Pass v Bid quandary. As it happens I was never going to bid 7 over 6♥. I was opener and worried about the extent to which I as opener might have bid it better, especially if the gallery felt that responder should pass 5♠. In fact the votes are fairly evenly divided, although the comments are mainly in favour of bidding. Including 6♥ in the options is of some value to me as those who choose that bid (or even 7♠) have the grand in sights and so presumably do not regard Pass as a reasonable alternative.

I held as opener

Scoring: IMP

North's hand

---

Obviously I have a choice of opening bids available. You may not agree with 1♠ and you may be right to disagree although I don't see it as having damaged us on this occasion. My biggest problem was whether to bid 6♦ in response to the double or be content with 5♠. Perhaps 6♦ is better. Anyway Qxx of Spades was onside so 5♠ rolled in with an overtrick when partner passed.

I am not sure how confident I need to be of making 5♠ to justify bidding it over the double. For sure, 5♠ one off is a disastrous score, but there is not a lot of bidding space, and if 4♠ by me is a very wide range bid, you could be losing more in missed slams by bidding 4♠ than by going one down in 5♠ if you insist on 11 playing tricks to bid 5♠. That tends to argue in favour of my bidding 6♦ I think.

[gnasher]

PFormaini, on May 23 2009, 08:04 PM, said:

Why would anyone in their right mind bid 5♠ with EITHER of those hands? Partner has promised only some constructive values - not the Moon. Why would partner not merely cue bid 5♣ to indicate slam interest and go on from there?

Under the circumstances - partner must be showing a hand just shy of a 2♣ opening with first round control of BOTH majors. Else why not cue bid and start looking for controls?

Are you saying that 5♠ shows a better hand than 5♣, rather than just a different hand? And if so, why?

[Fluffy]

I though 5♠ showing lack of club control was universal. Looks like it is not.

Even if the agreements are different, when partner asked you to bid a red suit it doesn't look right to hide AKQJx. Because AJ10xxxx is a good side suit. If you held ♠KQJ9xxx it would be a different thing.

[1eyedjack]

I think you are right. I wanted partner to appreciate that with a bit of help in the trump suit he had enough to raise. But he is always going to upgrade values in Spades, and if he has a singleton Spade 6♦ could be right. I don't think that the double promises both red suits at that level, but that should not divert me from bidding 6♦. The only disadvantage to 6♦ is that it commits to slam where 5♠ may be the limit. But in the light of day that really seems pessimistic. I still think that responder should raise 5♠, though. While I would certainly have bid 5♣ with a first round control, I don't think that 5♠ should deny both first and second round control in clubs - otherwise there just is not enough bidding space to cater for 2nd round control. Maybe a leap to 5♠ over a 3 level bid would show 2 Club losers, as I could cue a 2nd round control at the 4 level. On this hand I am unlikely to commit beyond 4♠ with 2 top club losers and another hole somewhere, and hands with 11 top tricks and 2 Club losers are thin on the ground (and less likely to open at the 1 level).

[Codo]

Fluffy, on May 25 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

I though 5♠ showing lack of club control was universal. Looks like it is not.

Even if the agreements are different, when partner asked you to bid a red suit it doesn't look right to hide AKQJx. Because AJ10xxxx is a good side suit. If you held ♠KQJ9xxx it would be a different thing.

Good, I am not alone.

[whereagles]

5♠ looks like what someone called partnership terrorism

I have meta-agreements on 5 level major suit raises, but they are agreements on RAISES, not free bids... lol. So, by a meta-meta-agreement, I'd take this as lack of club control and pass.

With a random partner I wouldn't know what to do. Probably pass as well and hope for the best. After all, there might be some bad breaks lurking.