[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

(P) 1♠ (P) 2♦
3♣ : 3nt
4♣ : 4♦
4♠ : 6♣

---

Is this the time to bid 6nt not 6♣?

[skjaeran]

At IMP's? Surely not.
If you can make 6NT you most probably can make 7♣ too.
If partner's ♠'s are not solid, you need a ruff to come to 12 tricks.
If partner has AKQxx x xx AKQxx 7♣ is great, but 6NT is still far from secure.

[bid_em_up]

jillybean2, on Apr 3 2007, 12:57 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

(P) 1♠ (P) 2♦
3♣ : 3nt
4♣ : 4♦
4♠ : 6♣

---

Is this the time to bid 6nt not 6♣?

I don't think so.

Partner has shown 5-5 at a minimum, and is likely 6-5 or 6-6.

You may make 6N, but 6C should rate to be the better slam, imo.

At imps, it really does not matter a lot if you are in 6 of a minor or 6N. If 6N makes, you lose two imps (1440-1370 = 70). But you lose a bunch if 6N goes down and 6C makes (more likely).

Its different at MP, where 6N may be a top board, and 6C only average (or even below average), but even then, I think I would still stop in 6C.

[whereagles]

No way. Suppose pard has

AKQJx
xx
x
AQJxx

6♣ is cold and 6NT might very well go down on a diamond lead.

[pbleighton]

No way at IMPs.

I'd think about it at MPs, but still probably bid 6C.

Peter

[Apollo81]

No, this seems like a light slam where you will need the trump suit for extra tricks.

[twcho]

agree with all the other posters. Just too absurd to think about 6nt

[mikeh]

At imps, the cardinal rule, when choosing a final strain (as opposed to level), is safety. If game is out of reach, aim for the safer partial, not the higher scoring one.. and carry this theme through game and slam decisions.

On the hand in question, it seems pretty clear that many of the hands consistent with the auction will be far, far safer in 6♣ than in notrump. Give partner AKQxx in ♠s, and you will usually bring home the suit with a ruff.. while in notrump, you will need the unlikely (35.5%) 3-3 break.

BTW, this is so clear (to me, anyway) that I wouldn't try 6N at matchpoints or even BAM.. if I were trying to win the board, I'd bid 7♣! AKxxxx x x AKxxx at least gives me a play for that, when 6N has no play even if ♣s behave (assuming a ♦ lead).

[DWM]

When I saw this bidding my first thought was why jump to 6♣ if you are unsure of the best final contract. Is there any mileage in taking a slower route to find out more information?

Then I looked at the bidding again. Not sure if this is good bidding or not but I would have been tempted to bid 3♥ rather than 3NT. I know that there is a slight risk of missing out on 3NT, however, I would expect P to bid 3♠ with a min for his bidding with no extra shape. If he bid anything else I would get a bit excited then.

More questions than answers.

[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 Pass  1♠    Pass  2♦
 Pass  3♣    Pass  3NT
 Pass  4♣    Pass  4♦
 Pass  4♠    Pass  6♣
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

I jumped to 6♣ thinking that was the best contract, after reviewing the hands I wondered if I should have bid 6nt. Double dummy I guess and to tell the truth I do not take a lot of notice of the scoring, though I am finding out the hard way that giving opps overtricks is costly @ MP.

[mikeh]

jillybean2, on Apr 4 2007, 09:19 AM, said:

Dealer: West Vul: EW Scoring: IMP

♠ AKT632 ♥ 8 ♦   ♣ AK9765 ♠ 98 ♥ AK9 ♦ AJ76 ♣ T842

West  North East  South

 Pass  1♠    Pass  2♦
 Pass  3♣    Pass  3NT
 Pass  4♣    Pass  4♦
 Pass  4♠    Pass  6♣
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

I jumped to 6♣ thinking that was the best contract, after reviewing the hands I wondered if I should have bid 6nt. Double dummy I guess and to tell the truth I do not take a lot of notice of the scoring, though I am finding out the hard way that giving opps overtricks is costly @ MP. 

I'm still not sure why you want to be in 6N, after seeing all the hands, jb.

If they lead a ♦, then you are going to have to be very lucky to make 12 tricks... it is possible, but very unlikely. Even if they don't lead a ♦, 12 tricks are not assured, altho quite probable.

Whereas 7♣ requires no more than 2-1♣s and ♠ no worse than 4-1: a good grand, altho 3-0 breaks are not rare, and 6♣ is just about 100%.


BTW, I understand the 2♦ response, but there is something to be said for 2♣... and that would have made for an interesting auction


And I think that you should have bid 5♥ rather than 6♣... because partner's 4♣ bid confirms wild shape and decent values... his actual hand, altho a priori unlikely was entirely consistent with the bidding, so grand was on the horizon..... I do not mean this suggestion as a strong criticism: I think you bid it pretty well as it was... for a B/I player, I think it was well done... I have seen advanced+ players make a hash of these kinds of hands.

[Vilgan]

I would never consider 6 NT on that hand. Partner is at least 5/5.. good chance of 6/5 to bid like that. I might cue bid 4H instead of bidding 6 clubs. Good to make it to a slam

To be honest.. with the 6/6 hand, if my partner suddenly leapt to 6 clubs when I've promised nowhere near the AKxxxx x void AKxxxx monster that I do have... I'm going to be very tempted to bid 7. All I really need from partner is the heart A, 3 trump (although 4 should be very likely) and reasonable breaks in the black suits. With 4 trump (more likely) I can handle many of the nasty break possibilities.

Eric

[kenberg]

Not 6N, as more or less everyone has said. The question is how to decide about 7C. QJx either way will beat it (since partner will win the red suit lead and will then start with a small club and put up the ace when a club is played by the opponent). With clubs 2-1 you will take 13 tricks unless there is a ruff at trick one (six clubs, three red cards, two top spades, two spade ruffs). Seems like 7C at mps, 6C at imps. This is hard to sort out during the auction.

[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 Pass  1♠    Pass  2♦
 Pass  3♣    Pass  3NT
 Pass  4♣    Pass  4♦
 Pass  4♠    Pass  6♣
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

mikeh, on Apr 4 2007, 08:30 AM, said:

I'm still not sure why you want to be in 6N, after seeing all the hands, jb.

When I was looking at myhands I saw 3n+4 made a few times, lets just forget I ever mentioned 6nt

mikeh said:

BTW, I understand the 2♦ response, but there is something to be said for 2♣... and that would have made for an interesting auction

It was a toss up between 2♣ and 2♦, I chose 2♦ because of the suit strength.
Do you think after 2♣ we could keep out of 7?
1♠:2♣
7♣ lol

mikeh said:

And I think that you should have bid 5♥ rather than 6♣... because partner's 4♣ bid confirms wild shape and decent values... his actual hand, altho a priori unlikely was entirely consistent with the bidding, so grand was on the horizon..... I do not mean this suggestion as a strong criticism: I think you bid it pretty well as it was... for a B/I player, I think it was well done... I have seen advanced+ players make a hash of these kinds of hands.

Now my B/I rationale for bidding 6♣ after 3nt:4♣ I intended 4♦ to be a cue bid in support of ♣ but after 4♠ I wasn’t sure we were on the same wavelength. So knowing I wasn't going to stop at 5 and rather than risk a misunderstanding, I took charge and bid 6.

[pbleighton]

"So knowing I wasn't going to stop at 5 and rather than risk a misunderstanding, I took charge and bid 6."

Sounds good to me.

Peter