[OleBerg]

Scoring: IMP

---

(2♥) - 2♠ - (4♥) - ?

[MFA]

4NT RKC
(hands with minors has to take-out double or guess a suit).

We must be very close to some grand, 7♣ or 7N, if N is sane (were you N, btw Ole? ).

[gnasher]

4NT RKC would be helpful. However, I play that as the minors.

I might just bid 7♣, but it's probably worth offering a choice, in case partner has good spades and a singleton club. I bid 5NT, pick-a-slam, followed by 7♣.

[Jlall]

7C, I also play 4N as not RKC.

[flytoox]

I will bid a simple 6N. We may miss 7C but there is really no realistic way to reach it.

[Fluffy]

First reaction is 7NT, but I admit partner could have ♠Kxxxx and ♦KJx so 7♣ can be better. supporting spades is a joke.

[pooltuna]

Jlall, on Sep 7 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

7C, I also play 4N as not RKC.

I assume you pass then as N holding

---

[cherdanno]

pooltuna, on Sep 7 2009, 08:47 AM, said:

Jlall, on Sep 7 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

7C, I also play 4N as not RKC.

I assume you pass then as N holding

---

And you, I assume, never miss a slam or overbid to a slam after opponents preempt to the 4-level?

[pooltuna]

cherdanno, on Sep 7 2009, 09:19 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Sep 7 2009, 08:47 AM, said:

Jlall, on Sep 7 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

7C, I also play 4N as not RKC.

I assume you pass then as N holding

---

And you, I assume, never miss a slam or overbid to a slam after opponents preempt to the 4-level?

If I didn't do that I wouldn't be bidding enough But the 7 level deserves extra care and a 60% chance that partner has the ♣A is a marginal grand.

[gnasher]

pooltuna, on Sep 7 2009, 03:28 PM, said:

the 7 level deserves extra care and a 60% chance that partner has the ♣A is a marginal grand.

Where did this figure of 60% come from?

[pooltuna]

gnasher, on Sep 7 2009, 09:31 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Sep 7 2009, 03:28 PM, said:

the 7 level deserves extra care and a 60% chance that partner has the ♣A is a marginal grand.

Where did this figure of 60% come from?

I snatched it out of the air as it flew by Otherwise it didn't seem to out of line for the bidding

[ONEferBRID]

Why would Advancer need TWO ways to show the minors: DBL = Responsive ( showing the minors in this case); thus 4NT should be RKC for Sp... especially when it is needed. [You do play Responsive DBL thru 4H don't you ? ].

This is not the same as a 4H preempt where 4NT = minors

[gnasher]

I'd expect 4NT to show 5-5 in the minors, and double to be more balanced and offer more defence - something like a 2254 or 2344 10-count.

[gnasher]

It seems sensible, if not especially memorable, to play
  ... 5♥
  5♠-5NT
as RKCB for spades. It's possible, in fact, that I already play that in one partnership, depending on how you interpret the phrase "in constructive auctions where we are already at the five level".

[Winstonm]

It is hard to argue with someone who has won two world championships, but for me if I can't find out what I need to know then I settle for the practical and don't push for perfection.

I would simply bid 6C over 4H.

[gwnn]

But Winston, that's exactly the point: if you can't push for perfection you just take the percentage bid, from the information you have so far gathered. the question then is: does partner rate to have the ace of clubs?

[MFA]

If I had to guess I would shoot 7 for sure.

[Winstonm]

gwnn, on Sep 7 2009, 12:30 PM, said:

But Winston, that's exactly the point: if you can't push for perfection you just take the percentage bid, from the information you have so far gathered. the question then is: does partner rate to have the ace of clubs?

The club Ace doesn't "seal the deal. And did anyone else notice that the 2H-4H bidders are red vs white and missing the AK of their trump suit?

QJ10xxx
x
KQJ
Axx

Q10xxxx
Q
KQx
Axx

KQJxxx
xx
KQJx
A

Edit: I also bet that if this were posed as a problem of what to bid white versus red over two hearts holding: KQJxxx, void, KJxx, xxx it would be about 99% in favor of 2S with about 90% WTP.

Edit: Many long years of experience has shown me that it is easier to get bullied into overbidding than underbidding in these situations - but your mileage may vary, of course.

[gnasher]

Does this work?

Bid 6♥, exclusion. Then convert 6♠ to 6NT, pass 6NT, pass 7♣, and bid 7NT over 7♦. At worst, you'll be in 7NT opposite KQxxx x Qxxx Axx when 7♣ might have been better.

I'd like to claim that I thought of this myself, but in fact Shireen (my other half) suggested it.