[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Feb 16 2010, 12:19 PM, said:

5332, partner is welcome to bid any suit, not just 6S or 6N, as we might belong in a 5-3 fit. I will pull with a doubleton.

To bid GSF bid texas then 5N

I wondered why no one else mentioned this. I mean, partner could have six of a minor, even.

The comment about Texas, then 5NT, as GSF makes me think. I can plausibly imagine this making sense, but I think a more precise "meaning" would apply. Normally, Responder could simply bid Texas and then Exclusion if there was a problem making GSF make sense. But, if the void was in hearts (the one-under suit), then maybe some response would be too high.

[Cyberyeti]

jdonn, on Feb 16 2010, 06:35 PM, said:

It's really a very understandable error to think this 5NT bid invites a grand. After all:

1NT - 4NT = inviting slam
1NT - transfer - acceptance - 4NT = inviting slam
1NT - 5NT = inviting grand
1NT - transfer - acceptance - 5NT = ....

Obviously someone who hasn't come across it before or who tries to extrapolate from similar bids might think the last auction invites a grand.

Not necessarily an error, undiscussed at less than top expert level even by people familiar with the "pick a slam" bid, it would be semi automatic to play it as quantitative. I threw it at a number of decent players last night, and all said that it was quantitative (although some wondered about GSF and rejected it).

If you're not sure where to play, do some more bidding at a lower level.

[kfay]

kenrexford, on Feb 16 2010, 07:01 PM, said:

Jlall, on Feb 16 2010, 12:19 PM, said:

5332, partner is welcome to bid any suit, not just 6S or 6N, as we might belong in a 5-3 fit. I will pull with a doubleton.

To bid GSF bid texas then 5N

I wondered why no one else mentioned this. I mean, partner could have six of a minor, even.

The comment about Texas, then 5NT, as GSF makes me think. I can plausibly imagine this making sense, but I think a more precise "meaning" would apply. Normally, Responder could simply bid Texas and then Exclusion if there was a problem making GSF make sense. But, if the void was in hearts (the one-under suit), then maybe some response would be too high.

There was a piece in this month's BW about this. The author believed that exclusion blackwood should bid bid as:

1NT-Transfer
Accept-Splinter
Bananas-Blackwood

Normally I play:
1NT-Transfer
Accept-Exclusion
Since the very large jump is difficult to mistake. Is there a clear expert preference?

[Jlall]

Transfer then splinter then 4N being exclusion is nonsense. Maybe it works if partner signs off over your splinter (and even that is not so clear), but if they cuebid something then bidding 4N is just normal keycard.

[jdonn]

I have heard of transfer then splinter then rebid the splinter suit as exclusion. I doubt I'd want to play that either but it makes a lot more sense than 4NT as exclusion there.

[kenrexford]

I was actually thinking along the lines of a sort of fusion between Exclusion and the old Culbertson 4NT/5NT convention, in theory. Something like 5♥ showing a void and a need for some number of keycards to go beyond 5♠ (with 5♠ showing that number or fewer). An immediate 5NT instead would invite a grand if partner has some other number of keycards (sign off at slam if not, show specific Kings if yes, or bid grand if yes+1). 5♥-signoff-5NT (or others) would be a power grand try (I can make a grand even opposite the rejection, partner). Opener can also "super-accept" a 5♥ try with acceptance+1 values, in some way.

[whereagles]

Fluffy, on Feb 16 2010, 08:31 AM, said:

it sounds very odd but I play this as GSF, sounds like 2 voids.

2 voids?? I can't really imagine that. To me pard has some 5332 and points for 6NT

Does invite to a grand, though.

[kenrexford]

whereagles, on Feb 21 2010, 03:49 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Feb 16 2010, 08:31 AM, said:

it sounds very odd but I play this as GSF, sounds like 2 voids.

2 voids?? I can't really imagine that. To me pard has some 5332 and points for 6NT

Does invite to a grand, though.

You have to love a call that has as it perhaps only two plausible contextual/theoretical contenders for logical meaning either:

a. 5332, or
b. wild-ass hand with two voids

"You would NEVER do that unless you had either 5332 with just enough for a small slam OR a wildly distributional hand with two voids."

That just sounds so insane, and yet...