[skjaeran]

kenrexford, on Aug 31 2007, 09:56 PM, said:

Partner's bidding was somewhat crazed, but I started wondering whether a hand was plausible. Maybe ♠KQ ♥KQ ♦KQ ♣KQJxxxx?

That hand isn't even close to what I'd expect from a partner bidding2♣...3♣.
An aceless, 4-loser hand.... I'd puke all over him.

[kenrexford]

OK. I was trying to see if somehow I might have lost it. Even questioning the blame as a noble thought was apparently too kind. LOL

That being said, what the heck is 5♣ in theory supposed to show???

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on Aug 31 2007, 04:15 PM, said:

That being said, what the heck is 5♣ in theory supposed to show???

I stick with my explanation above. Maybe KQJ AK K KQJTxxx is a better example.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Aug 31 2007, 05:20 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 31 2007, 04:15 PM, said:

That being said, what the heck is 5♣ in theory supposed to show???

I stick with my explanation above. Maybe KQJ AK K KQJTxxx is a better example.

Not bad. I suppose that makes as much sense as anything.

[bhall]

I think cherdano has pretty well defined it: 5♣ should show 10 tricks, missing two aces, with no suit having two quick losers. A one-ace answer to 4N puts you too high.

[P_Marlowe]

4C, wtp?

Do we play IMP or MP?
If we play MP, I migh consider my answer, but not much.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

4+6C, unless I know pard is a loonie.

[jdeegan]

4♣ to begin with. Now over 5♣, let's look at some basics about partner's strong two bid in clubs.
1) He is advertising a big club hand with at most four losers
2) He is off two aces, so his reluctance to suggest slam is sensible
3) The opponents haven't bid spades, so he ought to have two or three
Now, I can offer two black aces and one or two spade ruffs, so six ought to be OK and a grand is not out of the picture. How to bid 6♣ while offering some chance at bidding seven: duh, bid 5♠. True it is a long shot to work out better than just bidding 6♣, but that's what good partners are for.

[Impact]

Genuinely ugly methods:-

-Opener says "we are going to game" (ignoring the Precision facetiousness);

- Responder holds support for opener's suit, 2 first round controls, shortage and has to make a waiting bid, and then a further waiting bid for opener to clarify (4C)....

-Opener says : minimum & awful;

- NOW as responder I am still more likely to contemplate searching for a Grand than I am to contemplate going down in the small slam!

Surely there must be some sensible standard for a "demand" opener which rebids in a suit (rather than NT). A sensible case used to be a 3 Loser hand redolent with defence...then the only question is whether my Aces and singleton are working.

Note the "delightful" methods now force me to start probing for (grand) slam at the 5 level ....on Arend's construction switching the non-trump suits can result in anything (ok we don't really think that opener has singleton SK)....

I expect 6C to be pretty much cold - or at least odds on and the grand to have a play in most circumstances (NO, I cannot imagine opening a GF in a minor with NO Aces, as those distributional hands are better better commenced with a 1 bid).

My preferred bid over 5C is 5S in case he can bid 5NT in which case I will bid 7C....note that the rank of controls makes it difficult to put an intelligent partner in the picture (but would an intelligent partner consent to such methods?).

regards