5C Exclusion or control

[kgr]

(1♦)-3♦!-(Pass)-4♠

(Pass)-5♣?

3♦=Good 5-5 Majors

What should 5♣ be? Is it a control (1st/2nd?) or should it be exclusion?

 

These were the hands:

[hv=pc=n&s=saqj752hat7542dqc&n=sk83hkjda753cj753&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1d3d(Good%205-5%20Majors)p4sp]266|200|MPs[/hv]

How to reach 7♠?

 

At another table the bidding was:

[hv=pc=n&s=saqj752hat7542dqc&n=sk83hkjda753cj753&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1sp2cp2hp4sp6sppp]266|200|MPs[/hv]

2♣ was not 2/1; 2♥ Forcing; 4♠ showed a 3c♠ and around GF strength.

How should the bidding be to reach 7♠?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

If you kept the Michaels bid "lower" , then there would be no ambiguity about Exclusion:

( 1D ) - 2D - ( p ) - 3S jump

( p ) - 5C!

[Fluffy]

5♣ is not exclusion as far as I know, exclusion requires a jump, for some people also a control rebid is possible, but a new suit without jump cannot be.

 

Grand seems to be more easy to reach if the bidding starts with 1♠. Perhaps 3♦ is better overall, but since it puts me into unknown territory I have no clue how to reach using it. If you have better agreements over 3♦ perhaps its the best start. Having 4♣ as hearts and 4♦ as spades as a response sounds like a good start.

 

Anyway north shouldn't bid 4♠ IMO, his hand is really huge.

 

 

The easiest way to reach grand seems to be to start with (1♦)-1♠-(pass)-2♦

[gnasher]

5♣ isn't Exclusion, it's a cue-bid. You have to be able to find out whether the minors are controlled.

 

Opposite a good hand with the majors, North's hand is far too strong for 4♠. Without any special methods, he should bid 4♦, showing a good hand that wants to play in an unspecified major. The auction is a bit messy, because South doesn't know what trumps are, but the auction might go:

(1♦)

3♦-4♦

5♣-5♦

6♦-7♠

 

In the uncontested auction it's better if North bids FSF rather than the space-consuming jump to game. That allows South room to bid Exclusion:

1♠-2♣

2♥-3♦

3♥-3♠

5♣ etc

[gszes]

has to be controls (gnasher) too many hands similar too

 

AKQxx AQJxx A xx where the ability to cue bid is hugely

important just to get to slam at ll. Missing an occasional grand

is well worth making sure your small slam bidding is solid.

 

This hand is quite biddable using cue bids.

 

3d 4s 5c 5d 5h (looking for grand) if we cant bid a grand

now we might as well not bother trying.

[kgr]

If you kept the Michaels bid "lower" , then there would be no ambiguity about Exclusion:

( 1D ) - 2D - ( p ) - 3S jump

( p ) - 5C!

That is correct, but I think that 3S would not be the correct bid by North. 3S sounds preemptive to me.

We have 2D for the majors and that can be a 4-4 if at least an opening. With more distribution it can be weaker. Therefore 3D is a Good 5-5 for us.

[kgr]

Thanks for reply

5♣ is not exclusion as far as I know, exclusion requires a jump, for some people also a control rebid is possible, but a new suit without jump cannot be.

- Me and partner clearly agreed that 5C without jump was not exclusion. (we had the 2nd bidding)

- One player (sitting South with the 1st bidding) of another pair that plays the same 3D agreement as we, said that having 5C here should be Exclusion (I disagreed), or that it was very clear and obvious that 5C/5D exclusion would be the best agreement to have here (I started to doubt) and that partner should even take it as exclusion without having that agreement (I disagreed again).

 

Grand seems to be more easy to reach if the bidding starts with 1♠. Perhaps 3♦ is better overall, but since it puts me into unknown territory I have no clue how to reach using it. If you have better agreements over 3♦ perhaps its the best start. Having 4♣ as hearts and 4♦ as spades as a response sounds like a good start.

We have a very long (too long) system description without anything about follow-up after the 3-minor cue bid. So you are somehow right about the unknown territory. And maybe 1♠ will make the bidding easier, but still I would prefer to show the Good 5-5 in a forcing way.

We would take 4C as a fit-bid for H or S and 4D as a good raise for H or S. If I would have had the decision then I would bid 4D here.

 

Anyway north shouldn't bid 4♠ IMO, his hand is really huge.

I agree.

[kgr]

5♣ isn't Exclusion, it's a cue-bid. You have to be able to find out whether the minors are controlled.

 

Opposite a good hand with the majors, North's hand is far too strong for 4♠. Without any special methods, he should bid 4♦, showing a good hand that wants to play in an unspecified major. The auction is a bit messy, because South doesn't know what trumps are, but the auction might go:

(1♦)

3♦-4♦

5♣-5♦

6♦-7♠

Thanks; All clear and I agree with all of it, except some doubts about the last line:

- Why 6♦ and not 6♣? After 6♦: is it clear for North to bid 7?

 

In the uncontested auction it's better if North bids FSF rather than the space-consuming jump to game. That allows South room to bid Exclusion:

1♠-2♣

2♥-3♦

3♥-3♠

5♣ etc

3♠ iso 4♠ would have been a 3c-♠ and slam interest. I think I prefer that then iso 4SF.

But North has nothing more then a 3c♠ GF hand, so I think that 4♠ is the bid in our system. I don't think that North should bid anything else (not in our system anyway).

[kgr]

has to be controls (gnasher) too many hands similar too

 

AKQxx AQJxx A xx where the ability to cue bid is hugely

important just to get to slam at ll. Missing an occasional grand

is well worth making sure your small slam bidding is solid.

Thanks. All posts answered my main question. 5C is control and that is best.

This hand is quite biddable using cue bids.

 

3d 4s 5c 5d 5h (looking for grand) if we cant bid a grand

now we might as well not bother trying.

Looks like a good way, but maybe North should bid 4D iso 4S?:

3d 4d 5c 5d ?: seems to make it more difficult because South cannot bid H in a forcing way?

[kgr]

I was South at the 2nd table. Maybe 6♥ is a better bid than 6♠, but I didn't want to give to much info to opps (not that it would make it easy for North to bid 7 then).

 

The lead was small ♣, ruffed.

♠A,♠Q (West has 3c♠)

♥K, ♥A, ♥ ruff, ♣ruff + claim

=> Agree with this line?

[Fluffy]

given that there was no opening in your table yes, that's the only line.

 

But you can improve it a very tin bit playing only 1 trump before ♥AK, once a blue moon, someone has singleton in 2 majors.

 

 

 

[dake50]

What do 3H,3S,3Nt,4C,4D,4H over 3D mean?

Somehow cooperating to go slamming? As non-minimum.

Did 4S mean bad hand for M-slam with SKxx + HKJ + mA???

What more to cooperate?

Or 4S likes 6S, when 3S doesn't? Seems backward.

[Zelandakh]

In the Super-Michaels auction, (1♦) - 3♦ - 4♦; 4♠ - 5♦ (or 5♣ DCB); 6♥ - 7♠ looks right to me. The 4♦ advance should in the first instance be asking for the better major and having already shown a big hand, South is not good enough to commit beyond game. But after North cues (5♦ standard or 5♣ denial) they can cooperate and show the 6-6 shape - and that is enough for North to count 0 losers.

[gnasher]

Thanks; All clear and I agree with all of it, except some doubts about the last line:

- Why 6♦ and not 6♣?

I think 6♦ says that South isn't worried about a minor-suit loser.

 

After 6♦: is it clear for North to bid 7?

Nothing's completely clear in this type of auction, but he has a lot of good cards. Ask yourself what partner wants from you. He can't be hoping for another major-suit card, so this ought to be enough.

 

3♠ iso 4♠ would have been a 3c-♠ and slam interest. I think I prefer that then iso 4SF.

But North has nothing more then a 3c♠ GF hand, so I think that 4♠ is the bid in our system. I don't think that North should bid anything else (not in our system anyway).

I was suggesting that you should consider changing your methods. At the moment, your methods force responder to waste two whole levels of bidding when he has his most common hand-type.

[Lovera]

has to be controls (gnasher) too many hands similar too

 

AKQxx AQJxx A xx where the ability to cue bid is hugely

important just to get to slam at ll. Missing an occasional grand

is well worth making sure your small slam bidding is solid.

 

This hand is quite biddable using cue bids.

 

3d 4s 5c 5d 5h (looking for grand) if we cant bid a grand

now we might as well not bother trying.

..5NT, 6♣ (or 6♦ too) - 6♥, 6♠ - 7♠.(Lovera)

[rhm]

Again I take the opposite view, but admittedly this requires an agreement beforehand:

 

Control bidding should start below the 5 level.

Accordingly I think it much more useful that if a new suit bid at the 5 level can not be natural and is an invite for slam it should be exclusion.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

 

.

[Vampyr]

2♣ was not 2/1;

 

LOL

[lackeman]

IT is for 100% controll i can figure out since i have the major kings. With nothing in clubs (and not da either) i dont beleve he will go for slam. Not with opener behind. Then IT is clear that the hand is monster. If partner shows firstcontroll in clubs then we can be sure almoast on 7.

further since opps open and partner didnt pass partner will almoast allways have atleaste 6-5. With ax in club there is 13 most likhet tricks.

If pd have Xx in dimond and-in clubs i think he should pass 4s.

In the actuall hand the 5club bid is almoast un overbid, since he have to go down in 5spades.

Say for ex partner have 652-. For a slam u must have both h and spade K and dimond a. After the lead opps Will moast likley get for that and then take their d if not taking it at trick one.

Same is true if pd have 6511. U then have to have both kings and one of the minor A for 6tricks. Therfore partner should have cla or more likley 66 in majors. IF u had have less monstercard partner could have more or not and then have to sign of most hands in 5.

[lackeman]

Furthermore partner is depended of more in hearts. Say i have kxx IT may lose to hq. So i have everything and more on your hand than partner could dream of. The only thing is have partner single club and not the a. Best may be to bid 7. They have to lead clubs (the opners partner Will not have IT he may lead something else

[Dinarius]

OP asked about best bidding to reach 7 Spades.

 

No one has questioned the correctness or otherwise of 7

 

Six, yes, but 7? Not for me.

 

D.