Meaning of 5N

[mikeh]

Mike, I truly don't understand what you are saying. If I have Kxxx support for partner's weak 2, and a hand unsuitable for RKCB or exclusion and no losers outside of trumps, then I would use GSF. I assume you would, too. Both of our partner would tell us in reply to 5N that they have A or K of trumps. Both of us would then bid the grand.

Then if LHO preempts with 6S, both of us would still like to know whether partner has one of A or K of trumps, because neither of us would like to risk 7H sith Kxxx opposite QJTxxx. I would find that out because partner will pass with A or K, and double with less.

 

Somewhere I must have gone wrong. Apparently you have step responses to 5N that show A or K of trumps, but you never use them except, because you only bid GSF when you need 2/3 top honors to bid the grand.

I do see your point, even tho you don't see mine. My sarcasm was overdone.

 

But...my understanding of the step responses (which are compressed to being non-existant as one lowers the rank of the suit) is that, especially in spades, one can distinguish not merely which top honour one holds but, and this is critical, whether the A or K one holds is accompanied by extra length.

 

I have always understood that it is the extra length message that is the most important....because it may allow partner to commit to grand while missing the Queen.

 

But when one is facing a weak two bid there is in practice no need for an extra length message. While many will open 5 card suits, I don't think many of those players would use the extra length step to show 6! I think 6 is assumed in most partnerships.

 

In any event, in hearts, absent interference, one would normally have 3 step responses ending in 6♥...for me.....no A/K....A/K with no length and A/K with extra length. Obviously one could profitably play different steps when length is known but I don't play enough and in a serious enough partnership to make that practical....heck..I'm lucky if we both remember the steps we do play.

 

So if we play 3 steps, over 6♠ we have only 2 available.

 

It may make sense to use your suggestion, but it isn't part of standard agreements, afaik.

 

If partner has Axxx or Kxxx, he had other ways to invite the grand. If he has the freak I imagine as a distinct possibility....the hand like void Axx AKQJxxxx Ax he needs 2/3 and that's it.

 

And if he has that hand, knowing of the void suit Ace (along with a good in context heart suit...thus the K) is more important than knowing that you have or don't have the K of hearts. 6N will win a heck of a lot of imps compared to defending 6♠ opposite Ax KJxxxx xxx xx.

 

But you may be right that your approach is more likely to resonate with partner in an undiscussed situation....and this would definitely be that, for me anyway.

 

Frankly, if I held Axxx, I'd bid the grand anyway, if partner passed...but not because I expect him to be showing me the K....but because the odds are very high he has the K for his weak 2....he has 2x as many hearts as the opps and since he weak two'd the odds are even greater than that that he holds the K...and when he doesn't, maybe he has QJ and the K is in the non-saver's hand or he has Qxxxxx and the king is stiff.....all of which seems to make bidding grand on Axxx something like 75% or more. Kxxx.....not so sure :D

[Phil]

pass: I have the Ace of your void and good hearts in context (not 2/3 tops ones)

 

This may allow partner to count 13 tricks or 12 winners in 6N

 

7♣: my normal bid with 2/3 top hearts (if one bids 7♥ one deserves to find the equivalent of void Ax AQx AKQJ10xxx (assuming no exclusion was available, adjust to suit if the void has to be a minor) and no way off dummy when they lead the void suit.

 

Double...denies either of the above.

 

There is some merit in 6N with a side Ace and good hearts in context...if partner has the huge one-suiter, we probably have 12 tricks without the hearts coming in for more than 2 tricks, but he might have some 5530 and the 5 card suits don't break. So I reject that idea.

Mike, it seems to me that normal forcing pass do not apply. Partner has already expressed an interest in playing at the 7 level regardless of our spade holding.

 

The 'express interest in 6N' by showing the ace of their suit is interesting, however, if partner is relying on our heart suit for slam, and we are missing an honor, I don't see how we can make 12 tricks in 6N, unless partner has a 9-10 tricks in the minors himself.

 

Therefore, it seems pass and double would indicate something different than what we have in spades.

Phil, you misunderstood my post.

 

 

The point is that he knows we know this.

 

So making a FP expresses interest in bidding over 6♠ even tho we lack 2/3 top hearts.

 

We must be considering 6N...catering to some hand such as Ax Axx AKQJxxxx void....if I have the club Ace, we have 11 tops in 6N and presumably either the heart King (which I happen to think would be a sure bet) or maybe at worst a hook through the stronger opp hand for the King.

 

So my reference to holding the Ace of his void meant just that: regardless of what that suit was. My pass says nothing at all about spades unless that is his void. Any Ace I have outside of hearts HAS to be his void...unless he has a 10 card minor, in which case he's bidding that suit anyway no matter what...he won't play me for 2 side Aces and the heart King :)

Whenever I disagree with Mike, I find that delaying my response is usually a good thing, because I frequently reconsider my position. But not this time.

 

I agree with Cherdanno, but I won't repeat any of his arguments.

 

I don't know that it is a lock partner has a side-suit void, although I understand the inference from the non-use of RKC. If all partner needs are heart honors, why not cut to the chase with 5N? Its possible we are getting preempted in spades , and our RKC auction may not go as smooth as anticipated. Or, perhaps 4N is played as 4 ace blackwood here?

 

Would partner ever be interested in 7 if we didn't have 2/3? What if pard knew we had AJxxxx or even AJxxxxx? We have a high EV in 7♥ with a freakish hand like Ax Qxxx void AKQJxxx. I didn't provide the colors, but the opponents would tend to bid like this if they were w/r. We aren't getting rich in 6♠ x'd (on a bad day it MAKES), and they might even sac in 7♠.

 

Your reference hand of Ax Axx AKQJxxxx void is pretty specific. I agree 6N is OK if I have the A♣ + K ♥, but we might just be better off bidding 7 with this hand for similar reasons as I just stated above. And a hand like this might just blast 7♥ for the same reasons that you think Axxx will play for no losers. You think Canadians are daring? Try playing with us Montana-folk :)

 

However, the biggest issue about your interpretation of what pass shows isn't so much that I disagree with your way of thinking about this problem, because your thinking seems very reasonable to me. From a partnership standpoint, I think it is a dangerous approach to think like this, even if you had an explicit agreement with your partner.

 

Assumptions like: "I passed because obviously I had a side ace that covered your (known) void" might win the post-mortem, but it could inflict damage long-term. GSF is a question. It is not consultative. It does not ask one's 'opinion'. And as partner, we have a duty to answer this question.

 

By the way, I will mention that my friend was able to buttonhole two of the top American players and they both thought AJTxxx. I would settle for the A or K for reasons Cherdanno stated.