[Quantumcat]

NV/NV teams

1♣ (2♣) 3♥ (P)
3♠ (P) 4NT (P)
?

Agreements:
- At this vul 1♣ is 13+ balanced or 14+ natural
- X would be penalty interest, 2♦ would be natural invite, 2♥ diamonds either GF or weak, 2♠ club cue-raise, 3♣ weak club raise

I have:
♠AJ9
♥Q93
♦AQ76
♣765

I thought 3♥ was probably a splinter and I can't bid 3NT over that, so I tried 3♠ (showing values) to see what would happen next.
If 3♥ showed diamonds (maybe trying to show a super good hand with diamonds in case they bid 4♠?) then 4NT would be exclusion for hearts.
If 3♥ was a splinter for clubs, 4NT makes no sense as it would be exclusion for diamonds!

What would you have bid over 3♥? What do you bid over 4NT (you can assume he will bid 4NT no matter what you do)? What do you think partner has?

Partner is way better than me so you can safely assume he hasn't done anything stupid (like forget our agreements over michaels for instance).

[SteveMoe]

Off the top interpretation, 3♥ shows a stopper looking for NT. 3♠ shows a stopper, implying concern in a minor. 4N is quantitative, probably 18-19 balanced (slam possibility outweight penalty options).

If this is the dialog, then I will bid 5 ♦ 4-card suits up the line, accepting slam and trying for a safe minor suit contract. I will pass partner's 6♣ or 6N.

[ggwhiz]

I'm sure pard will justify this auction to a T but it sucks. 2♥ or 2♠ as unusual vs unuaual would leave us lots of necessary room and a clue.

Since I have none and a bare opening, I pass.

[semeai]

Quantumcat, on 2012-September-09, 19:07, said:

What would you have bid over 3♥? What do you bid over 4NT (you can assume he will bid 4NT no matter what you do)? What do you think partner has?

Splinter raise of clubs makes sense. I wouldn't understand it being a splinter with long diamonds.

Over 3♥, I'll bid 4♣ (based on my understanding of 3♥ being a splinter for clubs; if it's diamonds somehow, I'm lost). A bid of 3♠ sounds too encouraging. Partner's not going to bid 3NT, so I wouldn't think 3♠ is just a concentration here.

It's hard to believe 4NT would be exclusion for diamonds, though it's technically possible: LHO is 5-6-2-0, partner is 4-1-0-8, RHO is 1-3-7-2.

Why do you suggest 3♥ can be a splinter with diamonds? Is it just because of the 4NT bid? Assuming it is just because of the 4NT bid and not due to some systemic precedent I don't know about:

If partner is fairly literal, I'll just respond to exclusion for diamonds. If partner likes creative/torture bids, maybe I can be convinced (s)he decided I'd figure out that it should be exclusion for hearts, with diamonds trump.

[Quantumcat]

semeai, on 2012-September-09, 21:06, said:

Why do you suggest 3♥ can be a splinter with diamonds? Is it just because of the 4NT bid?

I didn't think it could be a splinter with diamonds, I thought it might show diamonds the same way 2♥ does, but maybe he wanted to say he has the gameforce version and extras in case of a 4♠ bid.

But partner isn't mean enough to invent a bid on the fly like that - if he had long good diamonds and void heart he would have started with 2♥, then 4NT. I didn't truly believe that's what he had at the time because I know he doesn't do things like that, even though there didn't seem any other possible meaning for 4NT.

[semeai]

Quantumcat, on 2012-September-09, 21:41, said:

I didn't think it could be a splinter with diamonds, I thought it might show diamonds the same way 2♥ does, but maybe he wanted to say he has the gameforce version and extras in case of a 4♠ bid.

Okay. Did partner agree to your system over Michaels under duress? I still wouldn't understand 3♥ being diamonds if partner agreed to 2♥ weak or GF unless your partner really hates it.

[MrAce]

This debate is way too deep for noobies like me

[Fluffy]

partner splintered in hearts to show support in our suit, and next asks how many keycards we have. USe whatever answer its standard for you and concentrate on making 6♣

[Quantumcat]

Fluffy, on 2012-September-10, 03:26, said:

partner splintered in hearts to show support in our suit, and next asks how many keycards we have. USe whatever answer its standard for you and concentrate on making 6♣

4♦ would be plain keycard, if 4nt was asking for keycards it would have a void diamond. That's why i said in the op that 3♥ being a splinter for clubs seems the most obvious meaning, but then 4nt makes no sense.

Partner's bidding did make sense after the fact, and probably was the most accurate way to bid his hand. I didn't understand during the auction and said he should have chosen something less accurate that would definitely be understood. He says the meaning is obvious and anyone would get it right. I started this thread to see what proportion of people did figure it out (always nice to know how dumb I am) but no one has yet!

[phil_20686]

Quantumcat, on 2012-September-10, 03:53, said:

I started this thread to see what proportion of people did figure it out (always nice to know how dumb I am) but no one has yet!

I am beginning to think your partner must be better at rhetoric than logic.

I do not understand any interpretation where 3H is not a splinter.

4N feels quantative on tihs auction to me, perhaps he is 4144 and wants to avoid 6C when you have only three.

[sailoranch]

If 4♦ is kickback, does 4NT become a replacement cue? Maybe Last Train?

[Quantumcat]

Phil is getting closer. We don't play last train, didn't think to mention that.

[phil_20686]

Quantumcat, on 2012-September-10, 17:39, said:

Phil is getting closer. We don't play last train, didn't think to mention that.

Actually, this could be the only way to get diamonds into the picture if he is 3145, and opener can be 3442 or similar. If one club can be 42 in the minors for your balanced hands, then I would think that 4N should be showing 4d and offering a choice of strain. I didnt immediately realise this implication from the OP's statement of methods, but if you are opening 1c with 43 you are probably opening 1c with 42.

If this is what your partner had, I retract my comments about his logic.

[the hog]

What did partner have? I think your partner had a brain fart to pull a sequence like this when clearly it was non discussed. Or partner was trying to show how clever he(she) was.