[humilities]

---

Question: would (should) 5C be exclusion for clubs now? Is this firm ground? (I would have been concerned that pass was possible) Is there any other way to determine if partner has the Ace of trumps?

Our agreements:
- 2S was 4th suit (100%) forcing to game
- 3D by North was just bidding out his shape - he promises at least 6-4 for this (3C would have been his fallback with a 5-4 and no other bid)
- 4C/4D by South now would be natural and set trumps
- We play kickback so 4H by South now would be RKC for Diamonds.
- there is no way for South to immediately bid RKC for clubs over 3D but he could do it after bidding 4C (or could have done it directly over 2C)

Thanks for your input.

[Cyberyeti]

We use 5♥ as GSF where 4♥ would have been kickback.

[TylerE]

I've always played that we can't exclusion in a suit one of us has bid naturally.

[mikeh]

It is common in experienced partnerships to have available a form of GSF that allows for step responses, rather than just showing or denying 2/3 top honours. However, over the usual 5N GSF, there simply isn't a lot of room when the suit is a minor. I suspect that is why cyber uses 5♥, to buy the room for the graded responses.

However, that requires a specialized agreement and so it is a non-starter in terms of answering the OP. Cyber's post is unhelpful and serves only to let him demonstrate his superiority.

In the context of the OP methods, it seems as if we are in a partnership that has spent some time on methods. I think that it is very likely that in this partnership, exclusion is by far the most useful and practical meaning for 5♣. We could set clubs as trump now, and then cue bid or keycard towards slam, or we could have keycarded earlier, but we have zero alternative to exclusion when we have a club void.

So I would definitely 'risk' 5♣. I think most of us recognize the shiver of fear that passes through us when we consider that partner may get it wrong.

I have two answers to that, from personal experience.

The one is that if partner gets it right, both partners gain confidence in the other, and experience the satisfaction of a well-bid hand.

The second is that IF partner passes, then it is very likely that you will have fixed a gap in your partnership, so long as you don't abuse partner. I'd hope my reaction, were I to have bid 5♣ and seen it go all pass, would be to smile, apologize after laying down dummy, suggest we need to discuss this later, and move forward. My apology wouldn't be because I thought I'd erred but to help partner (who probably worried that 5♣ was exclusion) deal with the sight of dummy.

[fromageGB]

Not firm ground, but possibly. It certainly doesn't make sense to me for 5♣ to be natural after 4SF - you could have just bid 5♣ rather than 2♠. But 2♠ could have been a try for help in NT, and having discovered help not forthcoming and a 10 card minor opposite you may want to play game in clubs. However, you could have rebid 4♣ for that. In that case what does 5♣ mean?

It could be exclusion, agreeing diamonds. Some might think 4♣ was a stronger hand, though, than 5♣ natural, where 4♣ invites a 4♦ ask. If this latter is in partnership style, then it is risky. As Mike says, try it, and use it as a discussion point.

[PhilKing]

I might be being a bit thick, but I would bid 4♦ and then GSF on the next round. 6♣ over 5NT then shows the A or K.

For me, 5♣ is a natural picture bid. ♠xx♥AKJxx♦xx♣KQxx would fit the bill, and there is certainly nothing whatsoever to suggest it is not "fast arrival" with different agreements. We bid 2♠ to expore for other strains, and hearing 3♦ we settle for the minor-suit game.

5♣ gets minus infinity, and that's generous. It is senseless without a specific agreement, and just not necessary.

[mikeh]

PhilKing, on 2013-July-17, 11:51, said:

I might be being a bit thick, but I would bid 4♦ and then GSF on the next round. 6♣ over 5NT then shows the A or K.

For me, 5♣ is a natural picture bid. ♠xx♥AKJxx♦xx♣KQxx would fit the bill, and there is certainly nothing whatsoever to suggest it is not "fast arrival" with different agreements. We bid 2♠ to expore for other strains, and hearing 3♦ we settle for the minor-suit game.

5♣ gets minus infinity.

what if you didn't have that agreement?

I do, btw, in my serious partnerships, but it seems fair to assume that the OP didn't, else why the question.

I think it is simply wrong for any of us to post an answer to a question stating only that one has a method that makes the problem trivial. It can be helpful to explain one's method of avoiding or solving the problem, using an agreement, but my suggestion is that one should always, in addition, strive to answer the question within the context in which it was posed.

Answering as cyber did with 'use 5♥ as gsf' or as you did 'set diamonds and use a graduated GSF scheme' is unlikely to help the OP in analyzing what he or she did at the table. Yes, it suggests that the partnership should look at other possibilities, so it can be helpful in the long term but, no, it doesn't assist those (the OP and other readers) who wrestle with the problem as presented and, presumably, as faced at the table.

I would add that while I advocated 5♣, and get a score of minus infinity for doing so, I would not have done so had I the option of setting trump and using gsf. Indeed, my argument was that partner SHOULD work out that 5♣ is exclusion precisely because our methods seem to lack any other rational way of dealing with this hand. Had we a rational alternative, because we played as either you or cyber suggest, then that argument fails and the 'natural, weaker than 4♣' or 'picture bid' alternatives become more plausible.

[PhilKing]

mikeh, on 2013-July-17, 12:09, said:

what if you didn't have that agreement?

I would probably just punt grand. That asks the opponent's if they have the trump ace.

I am not overlooking the rest of your arguments by cropping them, but in a nutshell it seem to me that just because we lack a way to do x does not mean that y must mean x.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2013-July-17, 11:25, said:

It is common in experienced partnerships to have available a form of GSF that allows for step responses, rather than just showing or denying 2/3 top honours. However, over the usual 5N GSF, there simply isn't a lot of room when the suit is a minor. I suspect that is why cyber uses 5♥, to buy the room for the graded responses.

However, that requires a specialized agreement and so it is a non-starter in terms of answering the OP. Cyber's post is unhelpful and serves only to let him demonstrate his superiority.

I'm suggesting a simple agreement that anybody sophisticated enough to play kickback should see as an easy addition (in fact I thought this was a logical extension of KB in that you treat 4N/5N the same way).

In fact, what I consider standard 5N GSF is fine here also, as most people play 0/Q as 6♣, K or A as 6♦, the one you are describing hasn't been played much in the UK in the 40 years I've been playing.

If I was going to "demonstrate my superiority" I'd have started 1♦-2♦(inverted not denying 4M) and been able to exclusion later quite happily which would have been no use to the OP whatsoever.

[ArtK78]

In my regular partnership, we have an agreement that one can bid exclusion RKCB in a suit naturally bid by partner, but only after there is explicit agreement on a trump suit. So, 5♣ over 3♦ would not be exclusion.

I would bid 4♦ followed by 5NT, and I would expect my partner to bid 6♣ with the A of diamonds.

In my opinion, this is a common treatment. If it is not the agreement of this partnership, and 5♣ is not exclusion, then there is going to be a serious problem getting to the right spot on this hand.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on 2013-July-17, 11:25, said:

So I would definitely 'risk' 5♣. I think most of us recognize the shiver of fear that passes through us when we consider that partner may get it wrong.

I have two answers to that, from personal experience.

The one is that if partner gets it right, both partners gain confidence in the other, and experience the satisfaction of a well-bid hand.

The second is that IF partner passes, then it is very likely that you will have fixed a gap in your partnership, so long as you don't abuse partner. I'd hope my reaction, were I to have bid 5♣ and seen it go all pass, would be to smile, apologize after laying down dummy, suggest we need to discuss this later, and move forward. My apology wouldn't be because I thought I'd erred but to help partner (who probably worried that 5♣ was exclusion) deal with the sight of dummy.

I think a better way to improve partnership confidence is to make a bid that doesn't bet loads of IMPs on partner's correctly guessing its meaning, then use our post-game discussion to agree what 5♣ would have meant.

If you bid 4♦ with the South hand, it doesn't have to end badly. Partner may bid Kickback himself, and then you can use our agreed methods to show three keycards and a void. Or he may sign off in 5♦ without cue-bidding, and then when you make a grand-slam try he should realise that ♦A is a good card.

It's most likely that he'll cue-bid after 4♦. Then, if you know that 5NT is GSF but you don't know what the responses are, you might bid it anyway, in the hope that he has ♦AQ. Or if you don't want to do that, you can cue-bid a few more times yourself, and again maybe he'll realise that ♦A is what's needed. Or it might be that we reach 6♦ because we can't be sure that seven is making, but that turns out to be the right spot anyway. Even if we lose 13 for being in 6♦ instead of 7♦, that's better than losing 21 for being in 5♣-4.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on 2013-July-17, 14:20, said:

I think a better way to improve partnership confidence is to make a bid that doesn't bet loads of IMPs on partner's correctly guessing its meaning, then use our post-game discussion to agree what 5♣ would have meant.

If you bid 4♦ with the South hand, it doesn't have to end badly. Partner may bid Kickback himself, and then you can use our agreed methods to show three keycards and a void. Or he may sign off in 5♦ without cue-bidding, and then when you make a grand-slam try he should realise that ♦A is a good card.

It's most likely that he'll cue-bid after 4♦. Then, if you know that 5NT is GSF but you don't know what the responses are, you might bid it anyway, in the hope that he has ♦AQ. Or if you don't want to do that, you can cue-bid a few more times yourself, and again maybe he'll realise that ♦A is what's needed. Or it might be that we reach 6♦ because we can't be sure that seven is making, but that turns out to be the right spot anyway. Even if we lose 13 for being in 6♦ instead of 7♦, that's better than losing 21 for being in 5♣-4.

you have convinced me

[cherdano]

For me, 5♣ is also natural, nothing else would have occurred to me.

[mike777]

humilities, on 2013-July-17, 10:30, said:

---

Question: would (should) 5C be exclusion for clubs now? Is this firm ground? (I would have been concerned that pass was possible) Is there any other way to determine if partner has the Ace of trumps?

Our agreements:
- 2S was 4th suit (100%) forcing to game
- 3D by North was just bidding out his shape - he promises at least 6-4 for this (3C would have been his fallback with a 5-4 and no other bid)
- 4C/4D by South now would be natural and set trumps
- We play kickback so 4H by South now would be RKC for Diamonds.
- there is no way for South to immediately bid RKC for clubs over 3D but he could do it after bidding 4C (or could have done it directly over 2C)

Thanks for your input.

fwiw 5c now I think should be natural.

so I now bid 4d...pard will bid 4h kickback and I will NOT show my club void. .. (

other option is too simply guess and bid 7d over 3d

[Siegmund]

Yet another hand where life is so much easier if 1D-1H-2C-3D is natural and GF setting trumps, rather than sticking these through FSF. Ah well...

I wouldn't be confident 5C was exclusion unless we had definitely agreed trumps. I wish I knew whether ANY bids by me, besides 4D, agreed trumps in this auction.