[lmilne]

---

Fairly simple expert 2/1.
2♣ could've been short if balanced, 2♠ shows some extras.

[ArtK78]

lmilne, on 2013-February-07, 08:46, said:

---

Fairly simple expert 2/1.
2♣ could've been short if balanced, 2♠ shows some extras.

Opener has described a hand that is consistent with 4-5-1-3 shape (or even 4-5-0-4 shape), although he may have been stuck for a bid with 4-5-2-2 and 2 small diamonds. Nevertheless, partner could easily have AKxx Axxxx x Axx in which case 6♣ would be a very nice contract.

I would bid 4♣ at this point in the auction. Let's see if partner makes any further forward going moves.

Even if partner is 4-5-2-2, if he has significant extras we could make 6NT. For example, AKxx AQJxx xx Ax and we are at worst on the ♦A being onside.

[billw55]

*** warning ***
*** nonexpert response ahead ***

Opener has shown 4513 or similar shape, so 3NT may have a problem in diamonds if there are not 9 cashers.

The next question is what is 3♠? Is partner cuebidding on the theory that 3♥ set trump? Or just tiptoeing around 3NT?

I guess I'll try 4♠ now, to play, but not with great confidence.

[PhilKing]

I would just jump to 5♣.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I think I'd have Responder now bid 4C! ( Minorwood since suit agreement was at the 3-level ), and if partner does show 3 Aces, I'd bid 6C .... otherwise stop at 5C .

[dake50]

Can partner have 3xA +(SK or HQJ or CJ)? I think yes.
4C now, since no previous bid showed real C-suit.
Hope partner can 4D= key ask.

[aguahombre]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2013-February-07, 09:29, said:

I think I'd have Responder now bid 4C! ( Minorwood since suit agreement was at the 3-level ), and if partner does show 3 Aces, I'd bid 6C .... otherwise stop at 5C .

Yes. Technically with the OP conditions for the 2C response, the 5-3 club fit was not established until responder's 3H (HX) cue. With 3-2-4-4, responder would have to bid 3NT to knock off clubs.

[kayin801]

4♥ should show real clubs and a doubleton heart since with 3=2=4=4 we'd probably try 3NT regardless. And we'd also bid 3N with some 3=2=3=5 hands with good diamonds. I think that makes 4♥ a pretty clear bid. Partner still has a chance to bid on with massive extras, and we'll have already shown our hand so he can make a good decision that way.

[jogs]

kayin801, on 2013-February-07, 11:52, said:

4♥ should show real clubs and a doubleton heart since with 3=2=4=4 we'd probably try 3NT regardless. And we'd also bid 3N with some 3=2=3=5 hands with good diamonds. I think that makes 4♥ a pretty clear bid. Partner still has a chance to bid on with massive extras, and we'll have already shown our hand so he can make a good decision that way.

I second this response. Would add 4♥ implies doubleton heart with honor(queen or higher).

[PhilKing]

The chances of partner removing 4♥ to 5♣ with an average hand is zero. We gave partner a chance to bid 4♥ on the previous round - he didn't take it. 4♥ now is more indicative of two honours eg ♠Qxx ♥KQ ♦Kxx ♣KTxxx. As far as partner knows, we could bid 4♥ one with ♠Qxx ♥KQ ♦JTxx ♣KQxx.

Give partner a normal minimum without great hearts and 5♣ is as good as anything. AKJx AJxxx x Jxx, for instance or AKxx QTxxx x AJx. Add an extra key card and partner can raise to six - he knows we have decent clubs, one wasted card in diamonds (the combination of our 2NT bid and failure to bid 4♦ or 3NT) and a minimum hand, so he should know what to do.

4♣ may get us overboard. If partner has ♠AJTx ♥AJxxx ♦x ♣Axx there is no way he is stopping if we show any signs of life, and slam is very poor.

[gnasher]

I think we have already shown a heart honour by bidding 3♥. If we had two low hearts and inadequate diamonds we would have hedged with 3♦ or 3♠. Hence 4♥ is a stronger suggestion to play in hearts, probably with two honours, or with ♦A to protect partner from being forced at trick one. ♦Kxx is a bad holding for playing in hearts - we don't want to play 4♥ opposite AKJx QJxxx x Axx

I can't believe that partner is 4522. Even if he felt it necessary to bid 3♣ with that, surely he would go back to notrumps over 3♥.

I think I'm worth 4♣ followed by 5♣. Although ♦K is partly wasted, ♥K and ♠Q are both promising cards.

[gnasher]

Phil, did you notice that partner has shown some extras?

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2013-February-07, 12:57, said:

Phil, did you notice that partner has shown some extras?

Added a jack to my examples. Decent 4513 will push a bit, I would think. Anyway, it's almost inconceivable that we can miss a good slam after jumping to 5♣ unless partner has an aberration. Partner showing, presumably, good spades (although some will not agree with my interpretation) is bad news for slam.

[han]

I can't believe nobody is bidding 3NT. After experts don't bid blackwood and experts don't take finesses, we now learn that experts don't bid 3NT?

We have a minimal aceless 2/1 with Kxx of diamonds. We have already bid 3H to show we have some useful cards and we don't insist on 3NT. Partner's 3S sounds like he is probing for 3NT, unless he bids again over 3NT. Many have said that partner is "likely" 4513 but it is inconceivable to me that partner has any other distribution.

A double dummy analysis confirmed that 3NT is the best game, followed by 5C. 4H is much worse.

I gave partner 14-15 HCP with a small singleton diamond. I believe that partner would have bid 3NT himself with an honor in diamonds.

[PhilKing]

han, on 2013-February-07, 13:33, said:

A double dummy analysis confirmed that 3NT is the best game, followed by 5C. 4H is much worse.

I gave partner 14-15 HCP with a small singleton diamond. I believe that partner would have bid 3NT himself with an honor in diamonds.

Did you attach any significance to 3♠? I know you have personally, but for the sim.

[JLOGIC]

I would have guessed 5C>3N but it seems close, I believe the sim. I guess we can make 3N without clubs sometimes when we have a club loser on 4-1 clubs which is what makes 3N better.

[Fluffy]

If partner has 3 aces including ♥A 6♣ looks promising, since he must have something more, ♥Q or ♠K would be wonderful. I would not sing off in 3NT or 5♣. 4♣ + 5♣ at least sounds right.

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2013-February-07, 12:52, said:

4♣ may get us overboard. If partner has ♠AJTx ♥AJxxx ♦x ♣Axx there is no way he is stopping if we show any signs of life, and slam is very poor.

I don't see why. According to the original post partner has promised 15+. OK, that hand is worth 15, but it's not exactly overflowing with extra values. If it goes 4♣-4♥;5♣ he has an obvious pass.

[aguahombre]

I believe, as Han says, that it is inconceivable opener has anything other than 4-5-1-3 distribution.

I disagree that opener is still probing for 3NT or that the sim comparing 5c/3nt/4H is valid here.

Review:

1H-2C
2S-2N...we are told opener has 15+(maybe a great 14).
3C-3H...Opener has now shown 4-5-1-3, and responder is almost assuredly 3-2-3-5. Opener also knows Responder is paying attention. If opener were minimum for this auction he could probe for 3NT by bidding 3NT. Responder gets to look at her diamond holding in light of opener's singleton.

But no, opener bids 3S. He clearly is probing slam in the full knowledge that responder likely has something wasted in Diamonds --not making a redundant 3nt probe. I would truly be surprised if opener had less than AKXX AJXXX X AXX.

BTW: That Diamond King, despite being worthless for the play, was a very important card. It allowed responder to make an immediate game-forcing bid and enabled all the inferences about the strength and shape of opener's hand to come to light.

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2013-February-07, 16:29, said:

I don't see why. According to the original post partner has promised 15+. OK, that hand is worth 15, but it's not exactly overflowing with extra values. If it goes 4♣-4♥;5♣ he has an obvious pass.

We can't have less that a game force. How bad can our hand be? We effectively have an aceless ten count. Name a hand where partner passes 5♣ yet slam is good.

And OP never said partner showed 15+ - just some extras. But it's a red herring since we have nothing.

Oh, lol just clicked the mouse on the diagram - rookie error. 15+ FTW. I still think a competent parter is capable of noticing that AAAK should bid a slam.