[Zelandakh]

mgoetze, on 2015-September-03, 08:10, said:

Reading this expert treatise you could be forgiven for thinking it does though.

Seems silly to me. With the 4-4 minors hand we can just continue 5♣ and look for a fit Baron style. A better meaning for 5NT is 5♦-4♣, which is otherwise a little awkward if we want bypassing 5♣ to deny 4 clubs.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-03, 10:14, said:

Seems silly to me. With the 4-4 minors hand we can just continue 5♣ and look for a fit Baron style. A better meaning for 5NT is 5♦-4♣, which is otherwise a little awkward if we want bypassing 5♣ to deny 4 clubs.

Having recently had the auction 2NT-4NT-6♦-6NT, where partner failed to see that playing in my SIX card diamond suit would be best, I'm not so sure it is silly.

[jimmyg010]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-03, 07:38, said:

Hello jimmy and welcome to the BBO forums. Some of the regulars are having a little fun with you, probably because of your choice of forum. As has been pointed out though, 5NT as pick a slam does not apply as a direct response to a natural 1NT opening. Instead start by introducing your suits - you can always bid 5NT later if it still seems like a good idea.

Thanks, and that's fine - it's been enjoyable reading both the constructive and not so constructive responses

[Zelandakh]

mgoetze, on 2015-September-03, 10:20, said:

Having recently had the auction 2NT-4NT-6♦-6NT, where partner failed to see that playing in my SIX card diamond suit would be best, I'm not so sure it is silly.

What are you gaining? You could have bid 6♦ anyway with a 6 card suit and bid 5♦ followed by 6♦ with a 5 card suit. The sequence 1NT - 4NT; 5♦ - 5NT thus becomes a waiting bid, usually with 3 diamonds, to see if Responder has anything else to say. This allows you to have your co-operative auctions searching for 4-4 fits at the 5 level rather than 6 level without giving up anything else. It is also closer to the more general rules for a quantitative 4NT bid and entails having to work out fewer special cases. This is why it seems silly to me - adding more complexity with no apparent gains whatsoever. And you will know I do not mind a complicated sequence or two...

[BillPatch]

Not that I am afraid to ask, for surely I am not expert-class, but I share the judgment of Josh Donn and Marty Bergen that finding the proper contract outweighs the awful information loss, so I won't ask.