[kfay]

Scoring: IMP

1♠-(2♣)-3♣-(4♣)
?

---

Gameplan?

[Apollo81]

5♣, then 6♣ over 5♠

[Hanoi5]

I thought Apollo81 was exaggerating, but he is quite right, 5♣ and then 6♣ (and then pass over 6♠). Probably 7♠ over 6♠ (if 5♣-6♠).

[whereagles]

Direct 6♣ to me.

[ArtK78]

5♣ followed by 6♣.

6♣ directly would focus attention on the club shortness (obviously with a very good hand), but 5♣ followed by 6♣ is stronger still.

If I had to guess (and I may, if the opps bid 6♣), I would guess at 7♠. It doesn't take much in partner's hand to produce a grand - KQJxx in either red suit with 3 small spades would be sufficient, and partner said he had a game forcing hand with a fit.

Quite frankly, the more I think about it, I may never settle for less than 7♠.

[kfay]

ArtK78, on Apr 16 2009, 10:54 AM, said:

partner said he had a game forcing hand with a fit.

Playing with my partner you've only been promised a game invitational hand.

[jdonn]

I'll investigate with 7♠. Call me optimistic.

[rogerclee]

jdonn, on Apr 16 2009, 10:06 AM, said:

I'll investigate with 7♠. Call me optimistic.

LOL

[ArtK78]

kfay, on Apr 16 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Apr 16 2009, 10:54 AM, said:

partner said he had a game forcing hand with a fit.

Playing with my partner you've only been promised a game invitational hand.

Sorry. I guess I am imposing my methods on the discussion. I use 2NT in this auction as an artificial invitational raise.

[MFA]

A possible way to investigate is to blackwood 4NT and then bid 5NT to show all the aces plus the queen of spades. That would make partner comfortable bidding 7 on a lot of hands with a source of tricks.

[nick_s]

Is there any inference available that pard did not make a fit jump?
If there's no source of tricks then 6♠ will probably be enough.

[jdonn]

nick_s, on Apr 16 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

Is there any inference available that pard did not make a fit jump?

Well he won't have a source of tricks with four trumps as often. He can still easily have it with three.

[kenrexford]

Although I tend to agree with Josh as far as gut instinct, I don't see what the rush is. I also do not see what 5♣ or 6♣ is supposed to accomplish. I think I'll start with a passive 4♦.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Apr 16 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

Although I tend to agree with Josh as far as gut instinct, I don't see what the rush is. I also do not see what 5♣ or 6♣ is supposed to accomplish. I think I'll start with a passive 4♦.

Your second sentence is my main reasoning for blasting. Is partner supposed to cuebid over 6♣ with JTx KQJxx Qx Qxx but not Qxxx KQJx Qx Qxx? Bidding clubs a bunch of times definitely shows a good hand, but I don't see how it gets us the information we need.

I'm not really sure how 4♦ does either, although I bet you can easily concoct something magical. Tell me what it is if you want, but I think I'm unlikely to be convinced.

[Apollo81]

kenrexford, on Apr 16 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

I also do not see what 5♣ or 6♣ is supposed to accomplish.

We get to blame partner for the final decision! I thought that was the point of post-mortems.

[JLOL]

Ill admit my first instinct was 7S. Jdonn we have been MBTing too much :?)

[Fluffy]

I like Michael's (MFA) idea of 4NT+5NT it describes it quite well, as long as his source is not clubs. When the opponents interfere we will blast 7♠ anyway.

[skjaeran]

I like 4NT....5NT.
Just blasting the grand vs an invite seems a little too much for me.