settle for small slam, or try for more?

[johnu]

How about something like ♠ - ♥ KQJ10x ♦ AQ109xx ♣ Kx where ♥ A opening lead defeats 7 ♦?

 

Any lead would beat 7♦:) It wouldn't occur to me to jump to 5♦ with this hand. I would keep the bidding low and hope for a round suit cue bid.

[Fluffy]

Any lead would beat 7♦:)

A bit pedantic but I would double that :P

[mcphee]

I agree with Jlogic but can't bring myself to not make one more try.

[rhm]

I don't think 5♦ exists, unless you agree it as something very specific. Partner certainly shouldn't have bid it without discussion.

What about

 

♠Qx ♥AKQx ♦AQTxx ♣Jx

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

What about

 

♠Qx ♥AKQx ♦AQTxx ♣Jx

Yes, what about it? I said the sequence doesn't exist unless you've agreed a very specific meaning for it. If you've agreed that it shows a 2452 18-count with the queen of spades but no black-suit controls, 5♦ is an excellent bid on that hand.

[rhm]

Yes, what about it? I said the sequence doesn't exist unless you've agreed a very specific meaning for it. If you've agreed that it shows a 2452 18-count with the queen of spades but no black-suit controls, 5♦ is an excellent bid on that hand.

With quoting you I wanted to give a broad hint that there is little point in arguing a bid does not exist when it actually occurs at the table.

If you have no specific agreement is it not your task to come up with a likely explanation or, if you play with a good player, resort to what is a common understanding under top level players.

If you jump to game in a game-forcing sequence you deny extra values (even distributional ones), but you should have your values concentrated in the bid suits and no controls in the unbid ones you could have shown with a control bid.

This does not guarantee the ♠Q but makes a 2=4=5=2 distribution seem likely. Opener needs something in the black suits for his previous bids. With the ♣Q he would probably have suggested notrump at some stage.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MinorKid]

I would had bid 4♦ over 2♥, commencing a cue-bidding sequence. If p bid 4♥ I may launch 5N.

 

The point is that partner's 3♥ over 3♦ may suggest his feature but not necessary an Ace, maybe planning for 3NT or 4♥.

In this case, 6♣ for me, Pass Partner's 6♦. The 5♦ may mean a minimum HCP hand to me, but either a extra shaped hand or very concentrated two suit hand, or else he might have bid 3N.

[gnasher]

With quoting you I wanted to give a broad hint that there is little point in arguing a bid does not exist when it actually occurs at the table.

If you have no specific agreement is it not your task to come up with a likely explanation or, if you play with a good player, resort to what is a common understanding under top level players.

When I participate in an internet discussion, I don't have a task, I merely have opinions. At the table I might have to guess what this particular player meant by his 5♦ bid, but in an online forum I don't. I can just comment on the existence or otherwise of partner's sequence, and leave the rest of you to guess what he's got.

[RSClyde]

I would have just used RKC directly over 3♥, now it's not clear that we can recover. However I also wouldn't have jumped to game with the other hand unless it carries a very specific message. Jumping around to show a minimum (if that's what this is about) is just silly. With shapely hands, it's all about controls, not maximums and minimums, so why cut off our exploration?

I understand that this wasn't the question... it just seems that the pony has already jumped the fence.