[jillybean]

A Kiwi friend sent me this hand.
Now I am trying to understand how they got to their contract before I hear about their auction, and need some help!

---

Playing 12-14 NT
In my world, 2♣ is natural, game forcing over 1♦

1♦ could be 12+ unbalanced or a strong nt.

[mw64ahw]

South has a 5.5 modified loser hand so I bid 3♥ showing the control and ostensibly looking for a stopper for 3N, but intending to move towards a slam after the reply.

[P_Marlowe]

I start with 3H

I guess it is pairs? This will make it hard to bypass 3NT.
Over a 3S response by partner after my 3H, I will bid 3NT.

[jillybean]

Yes, it's pairs, club bridge.

Over 3♥ partner bids 4♦

---

[mw64ahw]

If partner bid 4♦ I would take this as a slam try in ♣ with two keycards (and possibly a void). It also suggests 7 could be on the cards - too early to say whether ♣ or NT.
My response would be 5♦ as all keycards plus Q♣.

[pescetom]

It depends a lot upon what 3♥ and 4♦ mean to this pair, or to people in your area if they are not a pair.
I play 3♥ as natural stopper showing, ostensibly 4 card but could be 3 with doubt about spades.
In that context 4♦ pretty much has to be natural (he had a chance to bid 3♠ as a probe or 4♣ to fix trumps in clubs and show mild slam interest, but chose neither), and thus also a strange choice given the known fit in clubs, my short diamonds and the difficulty of fixing diamonds as trumps with slam interest.
If you like fishing expeditions there is some hope for 4NT, however it is interpreted; I don't and would just bid 5♣ while sharpening my knife for the post mortem.

[DavidKok]

A void? In which suit would that be? Partner has failed to splinter last round and doesn't seem to have a four card major, are you playing partner for a (30)73?

It is premature to ask for keycards, thankfully we have space to show controls and find out about strength before taking on the heavy burden of attempting to count to five. We need some trick-taking potential opposite as our hand is all keycards and the queen of trumps, so we need to maneuver partner into asking. Partner has bypassed 3♠ and 4♣, so we're missing the ♣K. I don't know what your agreements are about 3♠ here - does it show half a stopper for 3NT, or does it show a control for 6♣? I would like it if 4♠ by us here did not deny a heart control, but if 3♥ could have been a probe for 3NT and partner's bypassing of 3♠ did not deny a control we may not have that partnership agreement.

[smerriman]

DavidKok, on 2024-May-01, 11:05, said:

Partner has bypassed 3♠ and 4♣, so we're missing the ♣K. I don't know what your agreements are about 3♠ here - does it show half a stopper for 3NT, or does it show a control for 6♣?

How we do know partner is missing the ♣K? With either of those meanings for 3♠, aren't they generally forced into bidding 4♣ if they have nothing in spades? Or does our (ostensible) NT probe force to 5♣, and require partner to show controls even with a minimum without a stopper - if so, I guess that helps here (though maybe less so when they're the one with extras). These types of situations are always great when partner bids 3N and then we can bid on, but I find it hard to clarify what earlier bid I had at times when they don't..

[DavidKok]

smerriman, on 2024-May-01, 14:24, said:

How we do know partner is missing the ♣K? With either of those meanings for 3♠, aren't they generally forced into bidding 4♣ if they have nothing in spades? Or does our (ostensible) NT probe force to 5♣, and require partner to show controls even with a minimum without a stopper - if so, I guess that helps here (though maybe less so when they're the one with extras). These types of situations are always great when partner bids 3N and then we can bid on, but I find it hard to clarify what earlier bid I had at times when they don't..

Partner did not just bypass 3NT, they also bypassed 4♣. If they had bid 3NT we would have no idea about the presence or absence of the king, but now we do.

[smerriman]

DavidKok, on 2024-May-01, 15:20, said:

Partner did not just bypass 3NT, they also bypassed 4♣.

My query above was what partner should bid when minimum with the king of clubs, but nothing in spades. I would have bid a non-forcing 4♣ in that situation, given 3♥ was just a no-trump probe, and I don't want to imply slam interest. If 4♣ is non-forcing, then bypassing it can't deny the king.

That's probably wrong, so I assume 4♣ is meant to be forcing. If so, is there no way to say I have a minimum without anything in spades - i.e. I need to instead control bid, and neither player will know if the other has more than a minimum - or is the correct bid leaping to 5♣ (can't see that being right).

I've never been able to figure this out - it's always so much easier when someone does end up bidding 3N, because then bidding on shows the extras and also improves the definition of our last bid.

[jillybean]

---

(North dealer, opens 1♦)

Here's the full hand. Their auction was nothing like I had imagined.

[mw64ahw]

jillybean, on 2024-May-01, 19:47, said:

---

(North dealer, opens 1♦)

Here's the full hand. Their auction was nothing like I had imagined.

The immediate raise to 3♣ suggested a minor orientated unbalanced hand to me, but the subsequent 4♦ looks more like an alternative suit unless it is Kickback as a mild SI prepared to stop in 5♣.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-May-01, 19:47, said:

Here's the full hand. Their auction was nothing like I had imagined.

I think the auction is poor in the circumstances, although I am admittedly unfamiliar with their methods and weak NT in general.
I don't approve North raising clubs on 3 cards and repeating diamonds with 5 is even worse.
I imagine they could have ended up in 6NT following their system more rationally.

FWIW playing strong NT and my Stayman it might go:
1N - 2♣
2♦ (no 5M) - 2♠ (♥)
2N - 3♥ (5+♣ SI)
4♣ - 4♦
4♥ - 4♠
4N (even) - 5♥ (!♦)
5N (!♠,!♣Q) - 6♣
P

South knows there has to be at least a Q somewhere, but it could be wasted in spades rather than working in diamonds.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2024-May-01, 19:47, said:

---

(North dealer, opens 1♦)

Here's the full hand. Their auction was nothing like I had imagined.

Im not 100% sure, but a 2NT response to 2C would shown a bal. hand with 15-16?
In case it would have, the question why bid 3C instead of 2NT.

The 4D indicates a 6-4 shape, ..., but as was pointed out, there was no
splinter, so 6-4 is also not an option.

[Cyberyeti]

P_Marlowe, on 2024-May-03, 04:12, said:

Im not 100% sure, but a 2NT response to 2C would shown a bal. hand with 15-16?
In case it would have, the question why bid 3C instead of 2NT.

The 4D indicates a 6-4 shape, ..., but as was pointed out, there was no
splinter, so 6-4 is also not an option.

Many people play 2N as 15-19 bal GF, we actually drop the balanced. 3♣ is a terrible bid, categorically shows 4 as 2♣ needn't be 5 (what do you do with a 3334 outside the range for NT bids).

I was going to ask, what would 1♦-2♣-3♥ be, splinter ? (We actually play it as something like KQ10xx/AQ10xxx in a non stellar hand). 2254 good hand cuebid in the style where you cue first before 2nd would be a possibility as would kickback for 4♦.