[rduran1216]

after qualifying well, the finals were less than successful, see if I was apeshi'ite crazy on these.

---

your call?

[the hog]

Does 1S show 5? (It does not for me). If it does, 4S looks obvious.

[the_clown]

Lets see, for a slam to be good we need A♣ and KJ♠. Partner has 11 HCP at best, and he has at least 3 points in ♦. So I would just bid 4♠ and try to take as many tricks as possible.

[rhm]

the_clown, on 2012-November-26, 03:22, said:

Lets see, for a slam to be good we need A♣ and KJ♠. Partner has 11 HCP at best, and he has at least 3 points in ♦. So I would just bid 4♠ and try to take as many tricks as possible.

Wouldn't that make a grand good?

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

Pd is aware that we are void or stiff in diamonds , he still bid 3NT. But what else can he do with QJxx QTxx etc ♦. If we are lacking ♣A 3NT will have serious problems, unless pd stops their suit 2 times.

4♠ will not be picnic walk either, if pd has only 4 of them even with K. After first ruff he has to knock down ♣ A, clear trumps....tuff job.

This leaves me to choose between 4♣ or 4♦ or 5♣.

I want to bid 4♠ too, but i would be happy if pd knows my clubs are very good and he lifts to 5♣ when it is right to do so.

I would probably go with 4♣ planning to bid 4♠ next turn. This way we show that our clubs are very good and thats where we want to play the game if spades are not our real fit.Because pd doesn't know what our clubs look like., after all we could be bidding with

AQx
AQxx
void
KQxxxx

This has the danger that pd may think we were looking for a ♥ control, but i am not worried about that too much, i wanna play our best game possible with the risk of missing a slam that i think not too many people will bid, and i would probably start with 4♦ if i was looking for ♥ control desperately.

[the_clown]

rhm, on 2012-November-26, 03:30, said:

Wouldn't that make a grand good?

Rainer Herrmann

Sure but if partner doesnt have one of those cards, we will likely go down in 6 on a ♥ lead.

[rhm]

4♣

The hand is too strong for 4♠.

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

rhm, on 2012-November-26, 03:30, said:

Wouldn't that make a grand good?

Rainer Herrmann

KJxx
xx
KTxx/QJxx/
Axx

Which grand looks good to you Rainer? I assume 6♠ ?

You need 5th spade to make grand look good imo,

Or KJT9 ♠ but then if they lead a stiff ♣ or a ♠ you will know you are going down.

With KJxxx ♠ and no spots, on a spade lead , you will probably need 3-2 trumps to make grand.

Am i missing something ?

[Codo]

I would bid 4 ♠ and show my 3406 or maybe 3415. Partner will get me to the best spot over this bid, I am sure.

[rhm]

MrAce, on 2012-November-26, 04:03, said:

KJxx
xx
KTxx/QJxx/
Axx

Which grand looks good to you Rainer? I assume 6♠ ?

You need 5th spade to make grand look good imo,

Or KJT9 ♠ but then if they lead a stiff ♣ or a ♠ you will know you are going down.

With KJxxx ♠ and no spots, on a spade lead , you will probably need 3-2 trumps to make grand.

Am i missing something ?

As usual you are missing nothing.
A grand needs a little bit more, but 5 spades in partners hand are likely

Rainer Herrmann

[lycier]

after 3♥,I choose 4♦ .

[jdeegan]

I agree with Timo's analysis. The choices are 4♣, 4♦ or 4♠. Pard has no indication of my one loser ♣ suit, and my knowledge of pard's working HCP is + or - at least a king (ie. I don't know nuttin'). For better or worse, I would bid 5♣ as a descriptive bid and let pard decide on our final contract.

[Fluffy]

I will bid 4m, because I Want partner to be able to bid a negative 4NT, wich 4m depends a bit on style, I like 4♦

[rduran1216]

3NT is the last makeable spot, got a bad board for bidding past 3NT

[nielsfoged]

All white, I would have preferred a t.o. Dbl of 3♦, unless I have a specific agreement with partner, that I do not do that with a void (which I have ). Now I "just" bid 4♠.
/Niels