[wyman]

---

Poll is about IMPs. If you do something different at MP, feel free to say so.

[pooltuna]

a Foadi (gwnn?) 6NT. the 3NT and 4NT choices are just wrong as 18+15=33 and IMO the other 3 choices are at best misguided.

Edit: Okay the 4NT call is basically designed to avoid 6NT missing 2 aces in this hand it is not possible and so a control rich 17 is enough for me to choose 6NT

This post has been edited by pooltuna: 2011-August-04, 08:26

[wyman]

Sorry pooltuna, looked it up, HJ is Hx, so 17 only, if that changes your mind.

[Hanoi5]

I chose the first option for I would get to 6NT after the 2♦ response to stayman. 17+16=33. And it's better if partner receives the lead in a Major.

[wyman]

Ok, for some reason in my mind this hand was a control-rich 15. It's a control-rich 17. 3N off the table. New poll is up. Ignore pooltuna's response above, because I've unfairly changed the question (and hand) on him. Sorry.

The main question was whether the fact that this hand is control-rich leads you to (1) bid stayman and (2) bid clubs. Or whether you'd just punt the appropriate level of NT. And whether your response is different @ IMPs or MPs.

Sorry for the confusion

[JLOGIC]

I would probably just bid 1N-6N. Not guaranteed to be a success, but with such poor spades and strong clubs I will guess that NT is fine/better even with a spade fit. Certainly clubs could be right but at matchpoints I would not consider playing that strain. Leaving everything concealed will help partner in the play too, and that's worth something.

edit: I read it as MP not imps, sorry, at imps I would try investigating other fits.

[jjbrr]

I'd stayman and 4NT or 6NT depending on how often partner upgrades 14s.

[mikeh]

In most current NA methods, we lack any form of baron so we are never going to be able to know that we have a 4-4 club fit, but given that we hold QJ109, a 4-3 should work fine on most hands. So I will go the slow way: 2♣ then 3♣...I'm driving to slam, probably in notrump, but if he falls in love with his hand for clubs, grand is possible and biddable at least some of the time. If we fail in small slam, c'est la vie.

[jdeegan]

I think you have to drive to slam with your cards. There used to be a modified pointcount system that was supposed to work even with two balanced hands. Aces were worth something like 4.25 points, kings about 3, queens a little less than 2, and jacks about 0.75. You not only have three aces, but an AQ combination and QJ109. Unless your partner is a weak player who would open 1NT with a really terrible 15 count, then six of something should almost always have a decent play.

I would always Stayman at MP's because of the extra chance of making 13 tricks in spades. At IMPs I like the idea that sometimes spades will make when 6NT won't. If your combined count were 34 to 36, then maybe 6NT would be a good idea. Its the same principle as bidding 3NT with a 4-4 major fit with a combined 28-30 HCP.

Anyway, I am not really too concerned that ace empty fourth in spades is too weak for slam. It's probably only a little below average. With four small, it would be different. I also sympathize with the need for some some kind of Baron continuation to investigate a club slam, but on this hand I wouldn't worry too much.

[aguahombre]

Mildly amusing to me that we might have wrong-sided NT already, where 6S or 6C is fine.

KQJX
KQJX
XX
KXX

[nige1]

wyman wrote "Poll is about IMPs. If you do something different at MP, feel free to say so."

IMO .
3♣ (relay) =10, 6N = 8. It's worth exploring for a ♣ fit.
Playing 2/1, after Stayman, we use 3♣ as a further enquiry. Here ...
3♦ = Artificial. 4 card minor.
3♥ = Artificial. 5+ ♣.
3♠ = Artificial. 5+ ♦.
3N = Artificial. Both minors.

After 1N - 2♣ -; 2♦ - 3♣-; 3♦ - 3♥ is a further relay. Then ...
3♠ = Artificial 4 ♣.
3N = Artificial 4 ♦.

---

[xxhong]

You can bid 5NT over 2D to make it possible for partner to bid 6C in IMP. Of course, for MP, direct 6NT should usually be fine.

wyman, on 2011-August-04, 07:52, said:

---

Poll is about IMPs. If you do something different at MP, feel free to say so.