[Fluffy]

Ken, don't you have agreements of what an odd bid like 5♦ from north instead of 4♠ would ask about?, if it makes emphasis on club help this looks like it.

[kenrexford]

Fluffy, on May 26 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

Ken, don't you have agreements of what an odd bid like 5♦ from north instead of 4♠ would ask about?, if it makes emphasis on club help this looks like it.

A couple of my thoughts.

First, 4NT by Responder over 4♠ is clearly not RKCB. It has to be a cue. I would expect it to be a trump cue, and possibly right on this hand, to emphasize the fifth heart. But, I would expect this to show extra heart length with a top heart honor (Ace or King). 4NT, though, is a VERY close second call for this hand, and I have no real problem with that option in theory.

Second, I cue'd 5♣ as Responder because I would have cue'd 4♣ with any fitting hand worthy of action at this point with the club Queen, as a bypass of serious 3NT and a courtesy cue. So, I think I have denied the club Queen. J9(x) is contextually huge (and actually so opposite A10xxx).

As to Opener's options...

One aspect of this problem is the "what if" scenario. Partner had the option of a 4♠ leap immediately, as Exclusion I'm sure. So, the delayed action implies a need. I think the contextual need is obvious -- club help, whether shortness or honors. Something. This is about what I'd expect, which again is why I bid 5♣.

5♦ would be a weird call. However, I'd expect that to show what it sounds like. Something like ♠x ♥AKQx ♦AKxx ♣AJ109, perhaps. An inability to rebid spades because of the stiff, and inability to cue clubs again because of the lack of two top club honors, but diamonds. If the 1-4-4-4 is opened 1♦, then ♠x ♥AKQx ♦AKx ♣AJ109x. The fact that I as Responder am looking at the heart Queen does not change my understanding of what 5♦ should show -- it explains why 5♦ was not an option for Opener.

5♣ after the splinter, should look more like ♠x ♥AKQx ♦Axx ♣AKJ9x, IMO.

In other words, a splinter then bid again looks like a trouble hand that is strong enough for but could not bid 2♣ as an opening. A splinter then 4♠, however, looks like a wild player with a void that cannot stand it. That latter hand type has many forms, which is OK because the space available is maximal.

[Winstonm]

You can't know the continuations until you know the substance of the 4H sign off. Does it mean big spade waste: KQxx, Qxxx, xxx, xx? Does it mean weak hand: xxx, KJxx, xxx, Jx? Does it mean weak trumps? Kxxx, xxxx, Kxx, Qxx? Or is it general disinterest in slam: Qxxx, Qxxx, Qxx, Qx?

The meanings of the various continuations depend greatly on the meaning behind the sign off bid.

[kenrexford]

Winstonm, on May 26 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

You can't know the continuations until you know the substance of the 4H sign off. Does it mean big spade waste: KQxx, Qxxx, xxx, xx? Does it mean weak hand: xxx, KJxx, xxx, Jx? Does it mean weak trumps? Kxxx, xxxx, Kxx, Qxx? Or is it general disinterest in slam: Qxxx, Qxxx, Qxx, Qx?

The meanings of the various continuations depend greatly on the meaning behind the sign off bid.

True, to a degree. However, I think you can assume at least that Responder won't have a monster like some of these hands. It is also fair to assume some degree of modern bidding if Justin is posting the question.

[whereagles]

As it went, it's the weak hand that has to imagine what the strong hand has. It's always hard to get to the right solution in cases like these.

All praise the allmighty club 10

[Deevan]

Partner did not use some version of blackwood, so it looks like Pard is asking "anything more to tell?". Partner is suggesting that 5 level is safe. If partner wanted to find Key Cards he/she would have used some version of blackwood.

The thing that 1H and 4H did not tell was the existence of the 5th heart (I don't think partner is asking for that feature,else this would not be a problem). Partner would perhaps like to know if we have a side K in the minors. So, I vote for 5H. Nothing more to tell.

The one related point is as follows: May be a matter of style/agreements. Would you advance Cuebid the side minor King over 3S (if you had one)? and would you have bid serious 3NT over 3S with extras?

P.S. After writing the above, I saw comments on page 2 that I did not see earlier. Ken has pointed out something very interesting that 4NT should show the 5th heart. I do not think 4NT by responder would be KKB, you would not know what to do with the information thus provided! My question is how many players at the top most level systemically use 4NT as showing extra length?

[kenrexford]

Deevan, on May 27 2009, 10:50 AM, said:

...Partner is suggesting that 5 level is safe...

I hope so! LOL

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on May 28 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

Deevan, on May 27 2009, 10:50 AM, said:

...Partner is suggesting that 5 level is safe...

I hope so! LOL

No No No!!!

Partner is suggesting that there is a better chance of improving our score than diminishing it. Or more precisely that the gain from investigating and getting to a making slam by venturing the five-level is greater than any loss we might occur at the five-level.

[kenrexford]

Cascade, on May 27 2009, 06:59 PM, said:

kenrexford, on May 28 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

Deevan, on May 27 2009, 10:50 AM, said:

...Partner is suggesting that 5 level is safe...

I hope so! LOL

No No No!!!

Partner is suggesting that there is a better chance of improving our score than diminishing it. Or more precisely that the gain from investigating and getting to a making slam by venturing the five-level is greater than any loss we might occur at the five-level.

"Safe" does not mean "assured." It means what you said, roughly. We are just talking semantics.

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on May 28 2009, 11:00 PM, said:

Cascade, on May 27 2009, 06:59 PM, said:

kenrexford, on May 28 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

Deevan, on May 27 2009, 10:50 AM, said:

...Partner is suggesting that 5 level is safe...

I hope so! LOL

No No No!!!

Partner is suggesting that there is a better chance of improving our score than diminishing it. Or more precisely that the gain from investigating and getting to a making slam by venturing the five-level is greater than any loss we might occur at the five-level.

"Safe" does not mean "assured." It means what you said, roughly. We are just talking semantics.

I think "safe" is completely the wrong word in context.

When I take a safety play against a 4=1 break I don't expect that occasionally the 4=1 break will jump up and bite me.

Similarly when I read "safe at the five-level" I expect this to be an absolute not a relative term.

Maybe everyone understands the phrase but I suspect not.

It is often a risk to go to the five-level. It is not about safety it is a judgement of whether the potential reward justifies the risk.