[Hanoi5]

You open 1NT on:

♠AKQx
♥KQxx
♦Kxx
♣xx

Partner transfers to spades and you super-accept with 3♠ and he bids 5♠, what do you bid?

[TylerE]

How much better can my trumps get? That said, I think this is more of a "how do you like your hand" bid. If partner actually cared about particular trump honors, there's keycard. I think I pass. Yes I have 17 highs, but the AKQ of ♠ isn't really pulling full weight opposite a 5 bagger and I have no side source of tricks.

[jdonn]

6♠, wtp? I want to invite a grand but even if I bid something lower there is no way we will have an accurate auction.

[Cascade]

TylerE, on Jul 14 2009, 02:18 PM, said:

How much better can my trumps get? That said, I think this is more of a "how do you like your hand" bid. If partner actually cared about particular trump honors, there's keycard. I think I pass. Yes I have 17 highs, but the AKQ of ♠ isn't really pulling full weight opposite a 5 bagger and I have no side source of tricks.

So you have the best hand you could possibly have and a ruffing value and you pass. That just can't be winning bridge.

[TylerE]

Best *high* cards. But compare this hand to something like:


♠ AQxx
♥ KQx
♦ KQJx
♣ xx


My point is, that as 17 counts go the trick taking potential of the given hand isn't as strong as it could be for the auction.

[mtvesuvius]

6♠. Maybe even 6♥ if partner can figure this out.

[peachy]

Hanoi5, on Jul 13 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

You open 1NT on:

♠AKQx
♥KQxx
♦Kxx
♣xx

Partner transfers to spades and you super-accept with 3♠ and he bids 5♠, what do you bid?

If partner wanted to know about trumps/keycards, he would have used RKC. I think this is a general invite, ie. with A-K oriented hand or a source of tricks, bid 6, otherwise pass. I would pass because I have wasted spade honors opposite 5-bagger or longer.

A little similar situation is 1NT-2C-2H-5H. A general invite if opener is control oriented.

[the hog]

Clearly I am going to bid 6S.

[marcD]

Not sure what partner is doing . Anyway I am not passing : not my problem if we are off 2 aces . 6♥ to show good trumps and side source of tricks (the only reasonnable way to invite 7).

[Codo]

So the question is:

You bid
1 NT 2♥
3♠ 5 ♠

and you have no idea what 5 spade is for, but partner still bids it?
I won't care, but I would define it or not use it.

To me this would ask for top trumps and we answer in steps. So it is an easy 6♦.

When you have no agreement, do not use this bid. The number of ridicolus results like 7 spade -2 or 5 spade +2 will never compensate for the one hand where you are luckily on the same wavelength.

[P_Marlowe]

6S.

No idea what 5S means, but if it does not make, the 5S bid
was stupid.

We play 5S as a quantitative invite, of course we also play
3NT as serious, which is the bid partner should most likely
have made.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

I think it's OK to use 5♠ as a quantitative invite without discussion. Not in a serious tournament, but at the club night the main objective is to sharpen our partnership understanding, and undiscussed calls contribute to that.

Anyway, 6♠ wtp. The fact that I bid 3♠ rather than some cheaper and/or more specific superaccept suggests that we aren't playing Ken Rexford's system.

[Fluffy]

5NT shows AKQ I think, that's my bid.

[barryallen]

Hanoi5, on Jul 13 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

You open 1NT on:

♠AKQx
♥KQxx
♦Kxx
♣xx

Partner transfers to spades and you super-accept with 3♠ and he bids 5♠, what do you bid?

Normally I use the 5 of an agreed major as small slam force with the following steps when partner has first introduced the suit.

pass: does not hold 2 of the top 3 honours
5NT: 2 of top 3 honours, no additional length than already inferred
6♣: 2 of top 3 honours, additional length
6♦: 3 of top 3 honours, no additional length than already inferred
6♥: 3 of top 3 honours, additional length
6♠: 3 of top 3 honours, additional length, +

I don't know why, but have never considered the response over a NT opening and it's subsequent permutations. I suppose retaining the 5NT bid as 2 of top 3, all suit bids showing a second suit with AKQ of trumps and direct raise to 6 showing AKQ with no side suit worthy of mention.

With no agreement any step forward will lead us to a small slam, so 5NT looks as good as any with a maximum, giving partner that bit of space if he requires. But with no agreement and outside aces, I cannot see this going past 6♠ and that is what I would bid.

[Hanoi5]

5♠ either shows or asks for good trumps in order to play a slam. In this case it is clearly asking but I wasn't sure what was the right answer with this holding.

I just found it on the internet!

Josephine's Asking Bid


If you bid 5 in major this is a Josephine bid asking for trump honors, if these
things occur

A major suit is agreed as trump & you bid 5 in the trump suit. - Support partners major suit on the 5-level.

One exception is if the 5 bidder has denied strength that can include 1. control in all the other suits. The bid is then slam-try.

5H-

Pass: 0/1 top honor in trump.
5NT : 3 top honors in trump.
6H : 2 top honors in trump.

5S-
Pass: 0/1 top honor in trump.
5NT : 3 top honors in trump.
6S : 2 top honors in trump.

Anyway, my partner just bid 7 and I had the perfect hand for 6 (a slam on a finesse!):
♠T9xxx
♥Ax
♦Ax
♣Kxxx

X, Ace of clubs lead, 11 for them.

[P_Marlowe]

Hanoi5, on Jul 14 2009, 05:15 AM, said:

<snip>

Anyway, my partner just bid 7 and I had the perfect hand for 6 (a slam on a finesse!):
♠T9xxx
♥Ax
♦Ax
♣Kxxx

X, Ace of clubs lead, 11 for them.

Hopefully <perfect hand> was a joke, your partner has
one of the best possible hands and 6S is only 50%, make
the hand slightly worse, and you will have trouble making 5S.

=> 5S is simply a ... bid, of course 7S is also ..., if partner
wants to investigate 7S, he can bid different.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gwnn]

why did you bid 5♠?

[bid_em_up]

TylerE, on Jul 13 2009, 09:18 PM, said:

How much better can my trumps get? That said, I think this is more of a "how do you like your hand" bid. If partner actually cared about particular trump honors, there's keycard. I think I pass. Yes I have 17 highs, but the AKQ of ♠ isn't really pulling full weight opposite a 5 bagger and I have no side source of tricks.

I think I told partner that I really liked my hand in support of spades, when I super accepted the transfer. Kinda silly for him to now be asking "how do you like your hand?" again, don't you think?

RKC may not help partner any. It's entirely possible he has a void in his hand and an RKC answer will not tell him about the trump quality. We already know he has 5+ weak trumps, but its possible you may be super-accepting on 17 hcp with 4 trumps that are AJxx or K10xx (depending on what partner holds). I think the 5M bid always asks for trump quality in this scenario.

jmoo.

[kenrexford]

As an aside...

5♠ is a goofy bid, unless it makes sense. 5♠ as a quantitative invite is silly, as is a trump ask. So, what actually makes sense here?

IMO, the only logical meaning for 5♠ is a specific catering to a specific problem. The most logical problem I can think of is the void scenario. With a void, Exclusion makes sense. However, one Exclusion call is the most costly for the partnership space -- 5♥. A 5♠ call, then, makes a lot of sense as a call that says, "I have a void in hearts and a desire to play in 6♠ if your answer to a 5♥ Exclusion RKCB asking bid would have been 6♣ (2 without or better), but I cannot stand a 5NT response with just one."

However, if the Super-Accept seems to promise at least that good of a response, then I think the 5♠ call should actually ask for an acceptance if Opener has a better hand than two without, because the 6♣ response would have been the rouble response. Or, if the super implied at least two with the Queen, then 5♠ asks for at least three.

Whatever the minimum expectation for the superaccept, 5♠ could be used to show a void in hearts and a need for that minimum plus one. With that minimum plus two, or maybe a nice card somewhere, a cue back could be made. With that minimum plus two, the grand should be bid.

[Jlall]

Agree with ken, seemed pretty clear cut.