ATB

[Lord Molyb]

[hv=pc=n&s=sat98h632dj3cakqt&w=s643hqt98da964c82&n=skjhakdkq8c976543&e=sq752hj754dt752cj&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1np2cp2dp3nppp]399|300[/hv]

6NT and 6♣ are both frigid.

 

IMPs

[SteveMoe]

Can't believe there are many that would argue against opening North 1 NT.

 

Unlucky that South had the perfect cards for you. Somewhere I recall folks advocating a 2N or 3m response when holding a 6-card minor. That would have worked well here. Not sure I've seen that treatment in a while... 16 opposite 14 with 2 balanced hands doesn't seem like a common recipe for 6.

 

Perhaps if North chooses 1♣ instead....

1♣-1♠

2♣-2♦(3rdSF)

3N-4♣ Minorwood....

4♦-4♠

???

 

Precision:

1♣-2N(14+Bal)

3N(alpha for♣)-4♠ Best response (4+ Controls,Hxxx or better support)

5♥-5♠ control bids

6♣/NT

[rmnka447]

I think 1 NT is the correct bid with the North hand. The alternatives are odious. 1 ♣ followed by 2 ♣ is a serious underbid. 1 ♣ followed by 3 ♣ may address overall strength, but will seriously deceive partner about the ♣ holding.

 

Based on a strictly on bidding balanced hand slams based on point count, no one did anything wrong.

 

South might consider exploring the minor suit situation after North's 2 ♦ bid denying a major. Based on the known point count, the hands appear to have enough assets to make an 11 trick minor game. There's not really any necessary bias toward bidding 3 NT versus a minor game at IMPs. It's just important to get to a game that makes. 30-31 HCP might be enough for a slam if there's fit and the right controls are in place.

 

In some of my partnerships, we play that after a 1 NT-2 ♣-2 ♦ Stayman sequence, a 3 ♣ bid shows either a forcing hand with a ♣ suit or is a forcing minor suit checkback hand. If opener has less than 4 ♣, 3 ♦ must be bid. With 4 ♣, opener makes some other bid. That type of agreement would certainly uncover the ♣ fit, but I'm not sure on the exact sequence that gets you to 6 ♣/6 NT.

[Fluffy]

north's hand would be worth 1♣ + 2NT if he had club honors, but he had none. Sadly south had all of them, this is a typical hidden fit situation, no blame.

[Cyberyeti]

If you do open 1♣ (which we're forced to do playing 12-14 1N) and happen to play inverted minors which don't deny 4M as we do, you're golden.

 

1♣-2♣

2♦(asking, non minimum)-2♠(suit)

3♦(stop GF, won't have a heart stop unless slam try strength)-4♣(no ♥ stop non minimum)

4♦(kickback)-4♥(0/3)

5♣(signoff opposite 0, usually shows Q♣ ergo 6 of them)-5N(3+Q, nothing else)

6♣

 

Tough hand playing strong NT, we could find it using our 1N system but S would have to make a mild slam try to do it, and I'm not sure he bothers:

 

1N-2♣

2♦-3♥(MSS)

4♣(5+ clubs)

 

etc

[Fluffy]

don't you also need to play 4 card minor to raise with only 4?

[Cyberyeti]

don't you also need to play 4 card minor to raise with only 4?

 

Probably, we do, although for AKQ10 I'm not sure if I'd make an exception anyway.

 

In the "what hand types do you like" thread I put down minor suit slams, this hand is part of the reason why, they're much easier for us to bid.

[Zelandakh]

In some of my partnerships, we play that after a 1 NT-2 ♣-2 ♦ Stayman sequence, a 3 ♣ bid shows either a forcing hand with a ♣ suit or is a forcing minor suit checkback hand.

Another common way of handling this is to play 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♠ as a Baron range ask. That is, it asks Opener if they are min or max (hence usually a natural 2NT rebid) and if max, also that they bid their lowest 4 card suit. If Opener bids 2NT (min) then Responder can bid a 4 card minor instead. This would allow the club fit to be found at the 3 level if South thinks the hand worth a slam try. The disadvantages of the method are allowing a free lead-directing double of 2♠ and exposing more about Opener's hand sometimes when this was not necessary.

 

Basically I agree with Fluffy here though. Within the methods being used, noone did anything wrong. These kind of minor suit slams where the fit never comes to light happen all the time.