[Zelandakh]

I found this hand interesting. E-W are playing a very simple system with no super-accepts or Texas and few agreements. The scoring is (BBO) cross IMPs at Love All.

IMPs, Love All

---

Maybe you wish you upgraded to 22 with your 9 controls. Too late to worry about that now though, so what are you going to do over 6♠?

[billw55]

If partner is willing to bid six with no aces and without checking for them, he must be able to count up 33 points, which gives him 13+. Also his trumps must be very good, such as KQT9xxx. 7♠ must have good play.

[y66]

7S. I think pard will have KQxxxxx of spades plus 2 kings in the minors or similar for 6S.

[gszes]

If p is bidding for fun this hand will teach them not to:))) if they can count
to 33 and have 4 kings we belong in 7 and they bid well. The 5 card heart
will almost certainly supply us with our needed 13th trick (unless ill fortune
is with us and we have a sure heart loser). This hand is too good not to bid 7.

[StevenG]

If partner has a hand suitable for 7♠ opposite the right 2NT opener, why has he lurched to 6♠ without investigating?

[cherdano]

Zelandakh, on 2013-May-03, 04:12, said:

I found this hand interesting. E-W are playing a very simple system with no super-accepts or Texas and few agreements.

StevenG, on 2013-May-03, 08:40, said:

If partner has a hand suitable for 7♠ opposite the right 2NT opener, why has he lurched to 6NT without investigating?

[billw55]

I missed the bit about few agreements. But I still bid 7♠.

Nitpick: partner has lurched to 6♠, not 6NT.

[hotShot]

Partner could investigate 7, but he did not, so i guess he does not hold much kings.
I would expect lots of queens and jacks.
So I'll stay in 6♠.

[StevenG]

billw55, on 2013-May-03, 09:03, said:

Nitpick: partner has lurched to 6♠, not 6NT.

Fixed

But, even with minimal agreements, you usually agree some form of Blackwood. I'd bet on a lot of spades, at least one void and not much else.

[Phil]

I'm guessing partner has ♠KQTxxxx, and an outside KQ, a void and dead in the 4th suit: KQTxxxx void KQx xxx. Switch the round suits and its still good.

I bid 7.

[Fluffy]

Lets start with the things we know:

Partner must have 3 controls to jump to slam, since we have all aces, he must have a side void with ♠K and either ♠Q or a 7th trump.

We suspect that he has something else outside.

Since his void will most likelly be in hearts, his typical shapes will be 7033 and 60(43)

7033 is awesome, ♥AK get rid of one of his suits, and all that matters is KQ of the other, with 5th heart perhaps playing a role. If he has ♣K we are home ruffing a club.
6043 is awful, we need ♦K and most likelly ♦Q as well, if he has club honnors we are toasted unless hearts break.
6034 ismuch better, only needs ♣K, and even that could be surmounted with luck in hearts.


All in all I am bidding grand. In spades to be able to try for hearts 4-4

[JLOGIC]

I would bid 7, it's is not a lock or anything, recently I bid 2N p 6D and it felt pretty strange, my hand was ---- KT9xx KJT9xxx x...not sure what else I could do it's just a gamble. Here we have less inference that partner is just gambling since there are no methods available, he might have a 12 count with 6 spades for all we know (he doesn't even have keycard available since 4N would presumably be needed as quantitative). It must be hugely percentage to bid though.

[fromageGB]

Where's the mis-click button?

I'm going 7NT. "Few agreements" must include ace asking, but not showing voids. Partner is bidding 6 without knowing of the spade ace, and with a void somewhere. He must have 7 or 8 spades and a couple of kings outside. Or a powerful 2-suiter missing the ace of the suits. I think I have enough to bid on, and I am certainly not going to be setting the hearts up, so there is no point in bidding spades rather than NT. I suspect I have 13 top tricks.

It may be IMPS, and the extra 10 points won't count for much, but there's nothing worse than bidding 7♠ and having the opening lead ruffed. Particularly likely if partner has the 2-suited hand.

[JLOGIC]

fromageGB, on 2013-May-04, 08:47, said:

"Few agreements" must include ace asking

When 4N is needed as quantitative I don't see why this is true. How would you suggest partner ask for aces? Maybe gerber if you play it but that risks wrongsiding spades and it's not clear we play it.

If I were partner and I had something like KQTxxx xx KQx Qx even if I played gerber but not texas I would just transfer and bid 6S. Rather than worry that we have 32 HCP and are off 2 aces which is incredibly unlikely, I would be more worried about getting to 6S from partners side. I don't think this inference that partner has a void is neccessarily true in these circumstances.

[nigel_k]

Definitely bid 7. We should have bid 4♣ instead of 3♠ and since we didn't, partner will not expect this much.

[Zelandakh]

I was West on this deal and did bid 7♠. As I explained, 4♣ instead of 3♠ was not available and would certainly not have been understood as a super-accept. Even if it had been, I am not so sure it is the correct super-accept - many play it as showing good clubs. On the other hand, 4NT over 3♠ would have been RKCB and not quantitative (simple agreements => 4NT over a suit is always Blackwood).

This is the first time I can ever remember "overruling" a decision like this after a 2NT opener (or equivalent). The actual dummy I got was a surprise (♠KQTxx/ ♥-/ ♦QJxx/ ♣KJ9x) and is not really relevant to the discussion. The grand happened to make despite a 4-1 trump break since the ♦ finesse was on but is not a good contract. I was more interested in the general case, whether my action was justified. And since I found it interesting I hoped someone else would.

[fromageGB]

An interesting (lack of) bidding situation, and dummy was not as I expected. My 7NT needs diamonds 3-3 or the club finesse in addition. Not too good! But then, it is not often I am lucky.

[JLOGIC]

Zelandakh, on 2013-May-06, 02:41, said:

I was West on this deal and did bid 7♠. As I explained, 4♣ instead of 3♠ was not available and would certainly not have been understood as a super-accept. Even if it had been, I am not so sure it is the correct super-accept - many play it as showing good clubs. On the other hand, 4NT over 3♠ would have been RKCB and not quantitative (simple agreements => 4NT over a suit is always Blackwood).

This is the first time I can ever remember "overruling" a decision like this after a 2NT opener (or equivalent). The actual dummy I got was a surprise (♠KQTxx/ ♥-/ ♦QJxx/ ♣KJ9x) and is not really relevant to the discussion. The grand happened to make despite a 4-1 trump break since the ♦ finesse was on but is not a good contract. I was more interested in the general case, whether my action was justified. And since I found it interesting I hoped someone else would.

I remember playing against greco and hampson in a national pair game like 10-12 years ago and they bid 2N p 6N p 7N. As expected 2N bidders hand was something like 6 solid and 2 aces...only weird thing about it was that it was 6 solid spades lol