BBO Discussion Forums: What's 6 spades, undiscussed? - BBO Discussion Forums

Vampyr, on 2016-May-02, 18:48, said:

Do I really need to use smiley faces on posts like this?

Fluffy, on 2016-May-02, 17:26, said:

Just going back to SteveMoe's post from page 1 (which you upvoted) how do you play 1NT - 2♣; 2♥ - 5♠, Gonzo? If you are playing 5NT as quantitative, does in not make perfect sense to use 5♠ as the pick-a-slam bid, with the implication of holding 4 spades? This strikes me as less likely to be misunderstood than a leap to small slam, even for an expert partner for whom another path might be more elegant.

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-03, 06:05, said:

I don't have any agreement, my best guess would be exclusion blackwood.

Perhaps offtopic but an Israel pair in the Open European Bridge Championships (I think Dublin) had the following convention:

1NT-4♠ = slam force, bid your suits up the line
5♣-5♦ (4-card ♣, 4-card ♦)
6♣-6♥ (5-card ♣- 4-card ♥)
6NT-pass

6NT was a popualr contract that went down (could make only double dummy, or with a good guess after a club lead they told me not to).

Stephen Tu, on 2016-May-02, 09:30, said:

Well what on Earth does it mean for a meaning to be obvious if it's not comparable with something else and isn't 'to play'?

Quote

Or, as a third possibility that you've ignored, he's got a shapely hand that had grand slam interest iff opener showed up with 4 spades, and has now signed off. That seems perfectly natural, requiring the least interpretation - it might not be optimal use of space in a practice partnership, but neither is this sequence showing 4 spades exactly, for the reasons people have given above.

benlessard, on 2016-May-01, 16:14, said:

This would have been my real guess. Opener would bid hearts first with 4-4 majors, so Responder is just doing a pass-or-correct thing.

Jinksy, on 2016-May-03, 08:00, said:

Because that interpretation just makes zero sense, in comparison to the stayman = has 4 cd major, doesn't have hearts, therefore has 4 spades line of reasoning?

I mean what kind of hand with long spades is only interested in grand opposite 4 cd support where this is the best way to find out trick taking potential? If you have possible trump losers then partner holding say trump Q is just as good, you don't need 4 cd support opposite AKTxxx if partner has Qxx. If it's holding a side suit, why not show the side suit and initiate cue bidding? Or use splinters or other such tools?

I just can't imagine a long spade hand wanting to bid this way to find grand slam in spades where 4+ support is the critical factor. I *can* imagine partner not figuring out the best way to offer choice of slams holding four spades.

Fluffy, on 2016-May-03, 07:35, said:

Would 4♠ not already be XRKCB?

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-03, 14:48, said:

I never discussed that with my father, but if he used it I would take it as void showing slam try. With Sabate we play relays so it doesn't make sense (would use 2♦ GF stayman).

Actually for clarity on exclusion I think best is to bid 3♠ setting heart fit (Denying shortness in theory) then jumping to 5♠. Seems to avoid confussion.

I thought once Ben posted the only logical answer, the only thing left might be some dumb jokes. It isn't often when only one thing makes sense, but when it does happen, Lessard can be counted on.

aguahombre, on 2016-May-03, 21:23, said:

I assumed you were joking until you commented again.

aguahombre, on 2016-May-03, 21:23, said:

I think you will find it was Gordon (Rainsford) that first posted that possible meaning. And yes, Gordon's posts are usually logical and well thought out.

To say that there is only one logical possibility when several posters have given an alternative is stretching though, perhaps even a little insulting for those of us whose logic runs differently. I find it very strange to use an undiscussed jump to slam for an obscure purpose that can be handled more effectively through easy alternatives (3m, 5♠ and 5NT have all been mentioned) and to consider that to be logical to the point of being obvious. One might say that the logic of arriving at this logic is most illogical.

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-04, 03:17, said:

No insult intended about the logic leading to the conclusion. My logic hadn't gotten to what I now believe is the obvious answer at the time I read it from others, and I don't know if it would have at the table.