[Mbodell]

My partner and I have talked about explicitly not playing the somewhat common BBO pickup partnership aces-at-the-5-level responses when accepting a quantitative invite. This now frees up 3 different ways to explore possible suit strains. Mainly suits at the 6 level, suits at the 5 level, and 5nt. What should these all mean with respect to suit length and quality?

This came up after the auction (at IMPs):

1♣! - (3♥) - 3♠! - (P)
3nt - (P) - 4nt - (P)
???

Where 1♣ is strong, artificial and forcing with any 16+ and 3♠ is natural and 8+ game forcing response.

What do you expect partner to hold for the calls 6m versus 5m versus 5nt.

[csdenmark]

It is a rubbish auction you have here. 4NT is an obsolete bid. It is for responder to clarify his holdings not to put pressure on opener by wasting space.

After 4NT here 5m will be grand slam try and 6m will be sign off.

[cherdanno]

csdenmark, on Jul 12 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

It is a rubbish auction you have here. 4NT is an obsolete bid. It is for responder to clarify his holdings not to put pressure on opener by wasting space.

After 4NT here 5m will be grand slam try and 6m will be sign off.

This is quite a rubbish answer. 4NT is a balanced slam try. What else should responder do with a 5=3=3=2 hand worth a slam try to "clarify his holdings"?
5m over would be showing shape, trying to look for a suit slam. It is not a grand slam try. 6♣ by opener would be a suggestion to play with a good 6-card suit, 6♦ does not exist.

[csdenmark]

cherdanno, on Jul 12 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Jul 12 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

It is a rubbish auction you have here. 4NT is an obsolete bid. It is for responder to clarify his holdings not to put pressure on opener by wasting space.

After 4NT here 5m will be grand slam try and 6m will be sign off.

This is quite a rubbish answer. 4NT is a balanced slam try. What else should responder do with a 5=3=3=2 hand worth a slam try to "clarify his holdings"?

CUE bidding

[mike777]

Mbodell, on Jul 12 2009, 02:59 AM, said:

My partner and I have talked about explicitly not playing the somewhat common BBO pickup partnership aces-at-the-5-level responses when accepting a quantitative invite.  This now frees up 3 different ways to explore possible suit strains.  Mainly suits at the 6 level, suits at the 5 level, and 5nt.  What should these all mean with respect to suit length and quality?

This came up after the auction (at IMPs):

1♣! - (3♥) - 3♠! - (P)
3nt - (P) - 4nt - (P)
???

Where 1♣ is strong, artificial and forcing with any 16+ and 3♠ is natural and 8+ game forcing response.

What do you expect partner to hold for the calls 6m versus 5m versus 5nt.

my take:
4nt=invite slam, natural, not BW!
now over 4nt:
5minor= natural andslam choice but 100% forcing to slam.
5nt=pick a slam...spades or nt
6minor=to play.....

that means opener with any minimum, passes 4nt.

Note worst case even if 5minor was showing aces, when you bid 6nt partner can just pass or when you raise to 6 minor pard can correct to 6nt.

[goodwintr]

If 4NT is "obsolete," maybe opener's suit bids ought to be obsolete, too. All bids "accept." (1) a new suit at the five-level is a four-card suit, checking for a 4-4 fit as an alternative to 6NT; bidding is essentially suits up-the-line at the five-level. (Of course, opener doesn't have to do this: he can just bid 6NT if there is no reason to look for a suit fit.) (2) a new suit at the six-level is a good five-card suit, checking for a 5-4 or a good 5-3 fit.

Maybe this is unfashionable, but it seemed to work OK in olden days.

[jdonn]

6m is showing a 6 card suit and offering another slam.

5m is showing a 5 card suit. Opener may be intending to always bid slam and simply offering another strain, or may be helping responder re-evaluate and have the intention to pass 5NT. If opener rebids his suit over 5NT I would take it as offering another strain with a very good 5 card suit, KQJTx or something.

5NT invites responder to show a four card minor that he may not have bid over 3NT due to the nature of his hand (5224, lousy suit, help in hearts, etc.) But opener may have other intentions, such as a choice between spades and notrump.

And despite any earlier responses, 4NT is a perfectly normal bid, and 4 of a new suit over 3NT would have been natural by responder.

[awm]

Agree with Josh, although it may also be worth pointing out that responder might have a six-card spade suit. Bidding 4♠ here is not very forward-going, and while 5♠ is certainly possible it should promise a fairly robust suit. So it might be worthwhile for opener to try 5NT holding a doubleton spade honor in case 6♠ is the best slam.

[the hog]

csdenmark, on Jul 12 2009, 11:57 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Jul 12 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Jul 12 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

It is a rubbish auction you have here. 4NT is an obsolete bid. It is for responder to clarify his holdings not to put pressure on opener by wasting space.

After 4NT here 5m will be grand slam try and 6m will be sign off.

This is quite a rubbish answer. 4NT is a balanced slam try. What else should responder do with a 5=3=3=2 hand worth a slam try to "clarify his holdings"?

CUE bidding

Cue bidding when Claus? Agree that this is a balanced slam try - quantitative in other words.

[csdenmark]

The_Hog, on Jul 13 2009, 02:38 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Jul 12 2009, 11:57 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Jul 12 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Jul 12 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

It is a rubbish auction you have here. 4NT is an obsolete bid. It is for responder to clarify his holdings not to put pressure on opener by wasting space.

After 4NT here 5m will be grand slam try and 6m will be sign off.

This is quite a rubbish answer. 4NT is a balanced slam try. What else should responder do with a 5=3=3=2 hand worth a slam try to "clarify his holdings"?

CUE bidding

Cue bidding when Claus? Agree that this is a balanced slam try - quantitative in other words.

Certainly it is. People in this forum often seems paralyzed facing interference over 1♣ strong openings. No need for that.

I am not so sure that 3♠ was the best bid but I think until after 3NT there is no good reason to blame anybody here.

To occupy most space to explain a poor distribution is foolish. To bypass the option to play 5-2 fit in spades ought to be an eyeopener.