[pooltuna]

You are playing IMPS.
You are Vulnerable they are Not.
You are playing some version of SAYC.
You hold.

♠872
♥532
♦965
♣KT53

You are in first seat. You successfully resist the urge to open and hear the auction proceed.

You LHO CHO RHO
P    1♠    2♠    4♠
P    P      4NT*  X   *Do you automatically assume partner has lost his marbles?
P    P      5♦    P
?

Do you have a call after the X or after 5♦ or do you let partner do all the grave digging?

[Phil]

I don't think its very likely partner's hearts are longer than his diamonds. Perhaps a redouble by him would say that they are.

I pass.

[whereagles]

Pard has about 10-11 playing tricks in the reds. I can't contribute with one more, so pass. Or bid 5♥ if I feel like hogging the hand.

[gnasher]

The normal shape for a Michaels cue-bid is exactly five hearts and 5+ in a minor - 6-card majors tend to overcall instead. That means that with x56x he could have bid 5♦, expecting that I'd pass with equal length. Therefore 4NT shows 6 hearts and a 5-card minor.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on 2011-March-02, 17:35, said:

The normal shape for a Michaels cue-bid is exactly five hearts and 5+ in a minor - 6-card majors tend to overcall instead. That means that with x56x he could have bid 5♦, expecting that I'd pass with equal length. Therefore 4NT shows 6 hearts and a 5-card minor.

I was wondering, as I was reading, whether anyone would notice this. I agree 100% with your assessment.

That said, I wonder whether this actually is the ideal approach. I mean, red on white, sure. But, suppose the colors were white on red instead. There is something to be said for 5NT actually involving partner in the picture of both minors, sort of. If the 4NT bidder has, say, 0535 or 0553, perhaps 4NT could show that. If 4NT is doubled, Advancer could always bid 5♥. A 5♣ or 5♦ call could then be to play opposite the fragment (happily if the "fragment" is actually the long minor). Pass (or redouble -- not sure) asks for the long minor. Heck, you could even play transfers, redouble to clubs, clubs to diamonds, and pass asking for the minor (and 5♦ to hearts).

Just random sick thoughts.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2011-March-02, 17:35, said:

The normal shape for a Michaels cue-bid is exactly five hearts and 5+ in a minor - 6-card majors tend to overcall instead. That means that with x56x he could have bid 5♦, expecting that I'd pass with equal length. Therefore 4NT shows 6 hearts and a 5-card minor.

Maybe I misunderstand, but is there not a contradiction in this statement?
You say you would reject Michaels with a 6 card majors and instead overcall. You did not.
Now you claim 4NT shows 6 hearts and a 5 card minor.

Rainer Herrmann

[kenrexford]

I think the precise meaning of 4NT is "only five of my minor, may have a sixth heart." 5♦ would definitely be 5-6, though.

I mean, you can't cover 5-5, 6-6, 5-6, and 6-5 with two bids.

[pooltuna]

Partner's actual holding was
♠x
♥AKQT9x
♦AKQxxx
♣void

this was good enough to make 6♦(or♥) as both ♦&♥ split 3-1 with each opp holding a singleton red card.

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2011-March-03, 06:36, said:

Maybe I misunderstand, but is there not a contradiction in this statement?
You say you would reject Michaels with a 6 card majors and instead overcall. You did not.
Now you claim 4NT shows 6 hearts and a 5 card minor.

Rainer Herrmann

I said I would tend to overcall 2♥ with six hearts. That is, usually I would overcall, but with some atypical hands I would bid Michaels. I think 4NT shows one of these atypical hands.

[gnasher]

pooltuna, on 2011-March-03, 08:15, said:

Partner's actual holding was
♠x
♥AKQT9x
♦AKQxxx
♣void

this was good enough to make 6♦(or♥) as both ♦&♥ split 3-1 with each opp holding a singleton red card.

It appears that things didn't go according to partner's plan. Still, you beat par.

[Fluffy]

If partner doesn't bid slam with 12 top tricks what can we say?

[whereagles]

Indeed. It's a 1-loser hand, for heaven's sake.

How is the weak hand supposed to know of that? 110% blame to pard.

[gnasher]

Isn't it likely that partner was trying to get pushed into slam, to discourage a sacrifice? You might think that this didn't work very well, because 680 < 1430. On the other hand, 680 > 300, which is what we'd have got from 6♠x.

[gwnn]

gnasher, on 2011-March-04, 05:38, said:

Isn't it likely that partner was trying to get pushed into slam, to discourage a sacrifice? You might think that this didn't work very well, because 680 < 1430. On the other hand, 680 > 300, which is what we'd have got from 6♠x.

Your repeated and adamant faith in human intelligence -demonstrated, for example, in play threads- is commendable but I think mostly based upon science-fiction.

[mtvesuvius]

Damn Tuna, I know you have bad dummies, but... This is a bit much.

[kenrexford]

The club King was critical.

[aguahombre]

kenrexford, on 2011-March-04, 12:04, said:

The club King was critical.

Yes it was, and continuing on the serious note ---since a two-suiter like that comes up at least twice a week, we should have an agreement after Michaels and a spade raise by them.

Both 5S and 5NT show the hand. 5S=spade void, 5NT shows the club void. That way we won't miss 7 if pard has the right black ace. This would leave double and 4NT for lesser hands.