[gnasher]

Q9642 K62 - AKQ72

After an artificial sequence, partner has shown 11-14 balanced with exactly three spades. He has denied five hearts or a six-card minor. Partner will be declarer in clubs or spades. You have shown four spades.

You bid 3♣, showing slam interest and at least 5-4 in the black-suits. Partner bids 3♠. Instead, 4♣ would have agreed clubs; 3♦ or 3♥ would have shown length and strength there; 3NT would probably have been natural.

You can now:
- Bid 4♠, having already made one slam try.
- Bid 3NT, non-serious, but more serious than 4♠.
- Bid 4♣ (or something else at the four-level), serious.

What's it worth?

[PhilKing]

Minor quibble first: I don't think it's right to play serious/non-serious when one hand is limited. Here it would be better for 3NT to show good trumps, so I would just bid 4♣ denying good spades.

In your methods, I bid 3NT. I am bidding 4♠ over four of either red suit.

[Codo]

I love to have my ser/non serious opposite a hand with such a big range....

Partner has no particular strength in either red suit, so it is possible for him to hold AKx,QJxx,Qxxx,xx. I make one more try- 3 NT and bid 4 ♠ over 4 ♦, but 4 NT over 4♥.

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2012-December-12, 05:29, said:

Minor quibble first: I don't think it's right to play serious/non-serious when one hand is limited. Here it would be better for 3NT to show good trumps, so I would just bid 4♣ denying good spades.

Another option would be to play 3NT as inviting a cue-bid and four of a suit as showing shape. What do you think of that?

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2012-December-12, 05:51, said:

Another option would be to play 3NT as inviting a cue-bid and four of a suit as showing shape. What do you think of that?

I like it, but I also quite like the trump cue thing.

[billw55]

No expert here, but I make another try. I have:

an extra trump
the queen of trump
a void
an AKQxx side suit

I think it's worth more than one try. Much depends on diamond waste in partner's hand though. At least he skipped showing strength there. Did I have a chance previously to show diamond shortness? What is the difference between partner's 3♠ and 4♠ instead (if that exists)?

[dake50]

You bid **4D** showing slam interest and at least 5-4 blacks with D-void.

[jogs]

Please show the entire auction in a readable form.
What does partner know about our hand?
I'll probably just bid 4♠. Fear being in five
down one.

[gnasher]

billw55, on 2012-December-12, 08:09, said:

I have:

an extra trump

You showed five spades when you bid 3♣.

Quote

Did I have a chance previously to show diamond shortness?

Yes, but it would have set spades as trumps. Rightly or wrongly, you judged that getting to clubs opposite a hand like K10x AQx Kxx xxxx was more important than showing the diamond shortage, especially as slam could be cold even opposite diamond wastage.

Quote

What is the difference between partner's 3♠ and 4♠ instead (if that exists)?

4♠ doesn't exist.

[gnasher]

jogs, on 2012-December-12, 08:41, said:

Please show the entire auction in a readable form.

Why?

Quote

What does partner know about our hand?

He knows what it says he knows in the original post.

[jogs]

You didn't post the auction.
You only posted your interpretation of the auction.
I want to know if partner has wasted values in diamonds.

[gnasher]

jogs, on 2012-December-12, 10:48, said:

You only posted your interpretation of the auction.

No, I posted what the auction means, as a matter of partnership agreement.

Quote

I want to know if partner has wasted values in diamonds.

Partner has neither shown nor denied values in diamonds. If he had, I would have said so.

He has declined an opportunity to show length and strength in diamonds. You'll find that in the original post.

[lalldonn]

Gnasher could you post the actual auction with explanations? It makes it easier to wrap my mind around the problem. Also it should be up to us if we want to draw inferences from overcalls or lead-directing doubles that weren't made.

[gnasher]

If you insist.

1♣        5+ clubs unbalanced / (441)4 / 11-14 balanced (without 5 hearts or 6 diamonds) / any game-force
    - 1♥  4+ spades, not promising values
1♠        Exactly 3 spades, less than a game-force opposite normal responding values
    - 2♦  Artificial game-force
2♥        11-14 balanced (without 6 clubs)
    - 3♣  5+ spades, 4+ clubs, slam try (2♠ and 2NT would be artificial with meanings that are irrelevant; 4♦ would be a splinter for spades)
3♠        Natural (4♣ would agree clubs; 3♦ or 3♥ would show length and strength there; 3NT would probably be natural; 4♠ DNE.)

[lalldonn]

Ok thanks. Well I won't bid 4♠ since partner won't know what is useful. But with 14 points opposite 11-13, bad trumps, and (for the moment) only an 8 card fit, I am not serious. So I'm left with 3NT. I think that will work fine. I want partner involved in the evaluation since cards like black jacks might be very important, but it can't be all up to him since my red suits are so different and he won't realize that. Partner can't have a club cuebid so if he bids 4♦ I'll give up (or 4♠ of course) but if he bids 4♥ I'll move toward slam. If it's allowed I will bid RKC over that, and if he has two keycards I'll offer 6♣, three and I'll offer 7♣.

The only change I would possibly offer in that answer is, if partner bids 4♦ and I bid 4♠, if he would take that as absolutely no club control or no heart control then I would bid 4♥ instead to show one. But if he would just take it as your bid doesn't suit me (how Clee and I play it) then I like my 4♠ bid. If he has like AJx Axx Kxx Jxxx or something then in that style he is certainly allowed to keep bidding.

[cherdano]

lalldonn, on 2012-December-12, 11:52, said:

Ok thanks. Well I won't bid 4♠ since partner won't know what is useful. But with 14 points opposite 11-13, bad trumps, and (for the moment) only an 8 card fit, I am not serious. So I'm left with 3NT. I think that will work fine. I want partner involved in the evaluation since cards like black jacks might be very important, but it can't be all up to him since my red suits are so different and he won't realize that. Partner can't have a club cuebid so if he bids 4♦ I'll give up (or 4♠ of course) but if he bids 4♥ I'll move toward slam. If it's allowed I will bid RKC over that, and if he has two keycards I'll offer 6♣, three and I'll offer 7♣.

The only change I would possibly offer in that answer is, if partner bids 4♦ and I bid 4♠, if he would take that as absolutely no club control or no heart control then I would bid 4♥ instead to show one. But if he would just take it as your bid doesn't suit me (how Clee and I play it) then I like my 4♠ bid. If he has like AJx Axx Kxx Jxxx or something then in that style he is certainly allowed to keep bidding.

If partner cannot figure out that we have good clubs based on our slam interest and his spade holding, then I am absolutely fine with playing 4♠.

[lalldonn]

That is in response to which of my points? Are you saying because we are told our auction was already a slam try that you would bid 4♠ over 3♠?

[Fluffy]

I might have splintered instead of bid things but not really sure. Showing clubs won't help partner evaluate his bad clubs.

I would also bid just 3NT now if partner can bid 4♥ over that we are in business. Finding ♠AK ♥QJ will be impossible though

[fromageGB]

PhilKing, on 2012-December-12, 05:29, said:

Minor quibble first: I don't think it's right to play serious/non-serious when one hand is limited.

Another treatment is that the non-serious 3NT is serious, but denies the holding of the cheapest cue bid, to allow partner to show it.

[cherdano]

lalldonn, on 2012-December-12, 17:00, said:

That is in response to which of my points? Are you saying because we are told our auction was already a slam try that you would bid 4♠ over 3♠?

Sorry could have made that clearer.
I meant that I don't see the need to bid 4♥ over 3NT-4♦. Otherwise I agree with your plan.