[MickyB]

---

[Fluffy]

there is something rare going on with spades, perhaps related with the vulnerability. I can conceibably imagine a hand from partner that makes grand, this means that I am gonna explore for 6 at least. Is there a good way to explore for 6?. I don't find any except blasting it, that's what I'd do.

[EricK]

My first thought was 6♣. Then I thought maybe I should go slow with 4♠. Then I couldn't see how that was likely to help. So I'm back to 6♣.

[the_clown]

6♣ 100%. Very hard to explore whether we have grand or not, so I just bid 6. I expect that this will make 80% of the time.

And hope that I am playing Leaping Michaels so that p cant have big two-suiter in the reds.

[gnasher]

Normal methods in this sequence don't allow any way of showing a one-suited slam try. 4♠ would show a two-suiter (presumably including hearts), and 4NT would show the minors. Nobody knows what 5♠ and 5NT show, but probably not this.

Hence we're stuck with a guess as to level. Like everyone else, I guess 6♣.

[jallerton]

I am less enthusiastic about 6♣ than everybody else.

Whilst 6♣ is virtualy cold opposite: ♠xx ♥Kxxx ♦KJxx ♣AQx, partner could have:

♠xx ♥Kxx ♦Kxxx ♣AQJx which requires a 3-3 diamond break or a red suit squeeze.

Partner could also have any of:

♠xx ♥Qxxx ♦KJxx ♣AQJx

♠Kx ♥KQxx ♦Kxxx ♣QJx

♠xx ♥KQxx ♦KJ10xx ♣Ax

when 6♣ is virtually no play.

[EricK]

jallerton, on 2011-December-18, 10:50, said:

I am less enthusiastic about 6♣ than everybody else.

Whilst 6♣ is virtualy cold opposite: ♠xx ♥Kxxx ♦KJxx ♣AQx, partner could have:

♠xx ♥Kxx ♦Kxxx ♣AQJx which requires a 3-3 diamond break or a red suit squeeze.

Partner could also have any of:

♠xx ♥Qxxx ♦KJxx ♣AQJx

♠Kx ♥KQxx ♦Kxxx ♣QJx

♠xx ♥KQxx ♦KJ10xx ♣Ax

when 6♣ is virtually no play.

So are you bidding 5♣, or are you bidding 6♣ - but very reluctantly?

[jallerton]

It's very close so whether I bid 5♣ or 6♣ it will be very reluctant.

If you force me to choose, I'll go for 5♣. There will be a trump loser more often than people think. Like Fluffy, I am curious about the lack of spade bidding. Partner may even have made an off-shape double holding 3 spades in which case he presumably has 4 hearts and that does not leave so much room for the minor suit cards we need.

[sasioc]

I held this hand and bid 6♣, reasoning that if partner had a classical shape we were likely to have lots of tricks and that if she was off-shape she may have a stronger hand. I also thought that if she had spade length she may be more inclined to bid 3nt rather than double if she held soft spade values and a good hand and pass rather than double if she held soft spade values and a slightly less strong hand, hoping to take a penalty, so if she had some spade length it was hopefully without wastage. Unfortunately oppo kicked off their defence by cashing two bullets, so we did not gain on the board!

[jallerton]

What was partner's hand exactly?

[sasioc]

deleted

[MickyB]

KJx KQxx Kxxx Qx I think. I assume most will agree with me that the 6♣ bid was not to blame, but still, I thought it was an interesting decision. Unfortunately 5♣ makes.

[mikestar13]

jallerton, on 2011-December-18, 10:50, said:

I am less enthusiastic about 6♣ than everybody else.

Whilst 6♣ is virtualy cold opposite: ♠xx ♥Kxxx ♦KJxx ♣AQx, partner could have:

♠xx ♥Kxx ♦Kxxx ♣AQJx which requires a 3-3 diamond break or a red suit squeeze.

Partner could also have any of:

♠xx ♥Qxxx ♦KJxx ♣AQJx

♠Kx ♥KQxx ♦Kxxx ♣QJx

♠xx ♥KQxx ♦KJ10xx ♣Ax

when 6♣ is virtually no play.

All of your examples are not strong enough for doubling 3♠ in my partnerships--our minimums are enough higher that 6♣ is a reasonable percentage bid (though scary), but if your partner's minimums can look like this, 5♣ is quite sufficient, partner can still bid six with a strong double.