[Fluffy]

♠Kx
♥Kxxxx
♦Kx
♣KQJx

1♥-(1♠)-4NT
5♣(0)-5NT (kings)
6♦-6♥*
6NT-7NT

6♦ was intended as 1 or 4 Kings, althou there was no clear agreement in place for responder. 6♥ was bid after a hesitation, is the 6NT bid allowed?


Althou this one might not qualify, I found in the past bids where really the UI was AI from other sources, but there was a very likelly benefit from partner's hesitation, not for the UI itself, but because it gave partner the time to rethink how silly his previous bid was while a quick bid might have not given it. Is that part of 'help' from partner's hesitation considered ilegal? (the one that gives you time to rethink)

[blackshoe]

Is 4NT simple Blackwood? What is the agreed response structure?

I don't think there's anything in the laws to prohibit a player from taking time to think, wherever that time comes from.

[aguahombre]

6NT after the hesitation would be highly questionable. You showed no Aces, but he asked for kings anyway. You have all of them and a qjx to go with one king for a trick source. 7NT rather than 6NT is obvious, and anything else is suspicious.

[Fluffy]

yes regular blackwood, 30-14 structure for opener.

[blackshoe]

For me, 5NT is a Grand Slam try, and there is no LA to bidding it when I have shown 1 or 4 kings and I have all four, not to mention two extra tricks. Was opener asked why he only bid 6?

[Fluffy]

because he was asked, so he answered

[Trinidad]

I would bid 7NT. Partner has either heart support or his own good suit to ask for aces. If he then confirms that all keycards are there (by bidding 5NT) then I count:
o 2 spades, 5 hearts, 2 diamonds + 4 clubs = 13 tricks if he has heart support
o 2 spades, 2 hearts, 4 clubs + 5 diamonds = 13 tricks if he has a good diamond suit

No matter what, there are 13 tricks in NT.

Rik

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-04, 09:35, said:

For me, 5NT is a Grand Slam try, and there is no LA to bidding it when I have shown 1 or 4 kings and I have all four, not to mention two extra tricks. Was opener asked why he only bid 6?

Fluffy, on 2013-February-04, 10:25, said:

because he was asked, so he answered

He was asked how many kings he had, so he answered with 6♦ (OK, not a good idea given that he has everything partner could possibly want, but never mind....). Now his partner apparently signs off in 6♥. But at this stage, opener seems to realise he must have what is needed so bids on. Why, AT THIS STAGE, did opener only bid 6N not a grand slam?

[Fluffy]

5NT is used by weak players to find out about 6NT vs 6M at MPs

[aguahombre]

Fluffy, on 2013-February-04, 10:25, said:

because he was asked, so he answered

Weak retort from what I consider the perpetrator here (West). He wasn't asked to bid 6NT, and it isn't an "answer" to anything. If he was responding to a question about why he answered Kings at all by bidding 6D instead of 7NT, then I can understand that answer. But that isn't the real question.

If West is a rookie who doesn't understand that 5NT, in addition to asking for Kings, is a Grand try, then maybe he isn't a perpetrator. But if West is above that level, I would tend to believe 6NT was a hedge against the possibility that 4N might have been quantitative ---that possibility only emerging because of his interpretation of the B.I.T. before 6H. If it was such a hedge, then he was taking an action which might have been suggested by the B.I.T., and his intent when he bid 6NT rather than 7NT was illegal.

Might be heading toward a PP only.

[WellSpyder]

Fluffy, on 2013-February-04, 10:35, said:

5NT is used by weak players to find out about 6NT vs 6M at MPs

Ah, thanks for that explanation, Fluffy, I understand now - assuming this is a MP hand, of course, which I don't think you told us earlier. I guess that is a possible use of 5N if you can rely on your partner never to do anything other than to answer the immediate question. If opener thinks 5N is being used in this way then there is a case for bidding 6♦ to show 1 or 4 kings, but then bidding on with only 6N to show the higher number. Eventually it might occur to these players that if they are going to do that then perhaps they could bid 6N a round earlier, but never mind.

[gnasher]

Opener's intended meaning for 6♦ is AI to opener. If 6♦ shows one or four kings, presumably the idea is that with one king you pass a signoff, and with four you move. In the context of what opener thought the partnership's methods were, pass can't be a logical alternative.

[blackshoe]

Fluffy, on 2013-February-04, 10:25, said:

because he was asked, so he answered

What question did 6♥ ask?

[Fluffy]

I though you meant 6♦, over 5NT

[blackshoe]

No, I meant why he only bid 6NT.

[gnasher]

This isn't particularly relevant, but it's not just weak players who play that 5NT doesn't promise all the aces. It may not be very fashionable now, but I've certainly seen it recommended in print, and I think it used to be quite common amongst good players. It also seems to have merit - hands where you have to decide between six of a suit and 6NT are more common than hands where you are trying to decide whether to bid a grand slam.

I can also guess why opener didn't bid 6NT over 5NT (if it even occurred to him to do so). Without agreement, does 6NT show three kings or four? He had a clearcut way to show four aces: bid 6♦ and then move. I can't see any benefit to following a more ambiguous route.

[lamford]

For 6NT to be an infraction, it would have to be demonstrably suggested by the UI over the LAs, which seem to be only 7NT. The hesitation from partner was maybe wondering if 6D showed that king or the two others, a popular method, but one not consistent with simple Blackwood. I would bid 7NT as would almost everyone I am sure. That is irrelevant if 6NT is not demonstrably suggested by the UI.

[bluejak]

Fluffy, on 2013-February-04, 10:35, said:

5NT is used by weak players to find out about 6NT vs 6M at MPs

They also bid it because it is part of Blackwood. Doesn't mean anything more than that.