[ArtK78]

You hold:

Qxx
AKQxx
Jxx
xx

The bidding,

2♣ - 3♥
3NT - ?

2♣ is standard, except that since your 2NT opening is 18-20, 2♣ followed by a minimum NT bid is 21-22.

3♥ is a standard natural positive, at least 2 of the top 3 honors (2♥ is an immediate negative).

(1) Do you agree with 3♥?
(2) What is your call over 3NT?

[kenrexford]

5NT. It's the only way to suggest 6D very mildly.

[ArtK78]

kenrexford, on 2014-August-31, 20:42, said:

5NT. It's the only way to suggest 6D very mildly.

Why do you want to suggest 6♦, mildly or otherwise?

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on 2014-August-31, 21:00, said:

Why do you want to suggest 6♦, mildly or otherwise?

If partner has 3253 shape, with two of the top three diamonds, I have extra chances to make.

[Zelandakh]

ArtK78, on 2014-August-31, 20:35, said:

(1) Do you agree with 3♥?
(2) What is your call over 3NT?

1. No, I think the auction is going to run more smoothly if we start 2♦. To jump like this we should have 6 good hearts, not just 5. Also, systemically if 2♥ is artificial I think it is a good idea to play 2NT as th heart positive and just start the good balanced hands 2♦.
2. Assuming that 3♥ is per system, I think Ken is right here that 5NT has to be choice of slams absent any special agreements. What we do with a natural 5NT (15hcp) rebid is another question but this hand is a lot more common so takes priority.

[WesleyC]

1) 3H is very ugly with only 5 hearts and a balanced hand, definitely not my choice. On a related note: have you considered moving the heart positive to 2NT instead?

2) I'd try a simple 6NT. Even IF 5NT meant 'pick a slam' this hand isn't suitable. 6D will sometimes be better, but it could also be much worse, going down on a ruff or a bad trump break.

For the record, opposite a partner who stretched to upgrade their balanced hands, I might even consider a 4NT invite. This would be even more appealing if unbalanced 19-21 counts like [AKxx x AKQ KJxxx] were in partner's range...

[aguahombre]

Why did we design a system to get in each other's way?

[the hog]

kenrexford, on 2014-August-31, 20:42, said:

5NT. It's the only way to suggest 6D very mildly.

Unbelievable! You must be wonderful to play with.
In answer to the question, I bid 6NT. However I do not like the system.

[MrAce]

aguahombre, on 2014-September-01, 01:42, said:

Why did we design a system to get in each other's way?

But..this is not the topic imo. He did not ask us if his system matches to our taste. Why can't we assume that we are a pro and playing the system our client likes and try to tackle the problems with whatever we have in our hand? We don't even have to be a pro in order to play something that would not be our choice -assume we decided it's better/easier for us to play pd's methods than he is playing ours.

If Art decides to reply your question, I am sure he will start telling/explaining a lot of other auctions that they feel the need to keep the way they like, and that it led them to show ♥ positive this way. And it will be a long, off topic discussion which will lead to topic hijack.

[rhm]

ArtK78, on 2014-August-31, 20:35, said:

You hold:

Qxx
AKQxx
Jxx
xx

The bidding,

2♣ - 3♥
3NT - ?

2♣ is standard, except that since your 2NT opening is 18-20, 2♣ followed by a minimum NT bid is 21-22.

3♥ is a standard natural positive, at least 2 of the top 3 honors (2♥ is an immediate negative).

(1) Do you agree with 3♥?
(2) What is your call over 3NT?

It depends on the rest of the system and how much general strength 3♥ implies.
I will assume 3♥ could be based on two top honors and not much else.
But with the notrump ranges as they are in this system, partner has a very high chance to be balanced.
In that case hearts may play better from his side.
If he does not have 21-22 balanced you will probably be better off starting with 2♦, because you save an important level of bidding or you will hear that opener has an even stronger balanced hand.
I accept that with this attitude there is hardly a hand where an initial 3♥ response will ever make much sense.
But this is Bridge logic and I would not make an inferior bid just because it does not violate the agreements I have.
Wouldn't it be better at this point to know for sure that partner is balanced 21-22, which you can not be sure about now?
I think you should change your agreements that a jump response to 2♣ should show a stronger suit, which will play for no more than one loser opposite shortage.

Assuming you have no special agreement at this point, you now have to bid 6NT, because partner holding 21-22 should pass if you invite with 4NT.
After all he could be stronger and 4NT should show a weaker hand than you have.
I am not sure what 5NT would mean, but I think it invites a grand.
If partner has a game force with 3♠-1♥-5♦-4♣ or similar we might belong in six or seven diamonds but I see no way getting there without overstating my diamonds.

Rainer Herrmann

[kenrexford]

Partner was under pressure to bid 3NT. We both know that. If partner had bid 3NT as a natural balanced call, this would be different.

Because of this, partner could easily have something mild like 3154 or 3145. But, he could also have a six bagger in a minot.

Because of this, I don't think that partner will introduce a minor over 5NT unless the suit defines the hand. 5NT in this auction is more of a last chance to show your minor call, not an invite to show four diamonds, or even five lousy ones.

4D, on the other hand, in this pressure sequence, is available for introducing a real second suit, which also explains why 6D must be a good suit.

[rhm]

kenrexford, on 2014-September-01, 04:32, said:

Partner was under pressure to bid 3NT. We both know that. If partner had bid 3NT as a natural balanced call, this would be different.

Because of this, partner could easily have something mild like 3154 or 3145. But, he could also have a six bagger in a minot.

Because of this, I don't think that partner will introduce a minor over 5NT unless the suit defines the hand. 5NT in this auction is more of a last chance to show your minor call, not an invite to show four diamonds, or even five lousy ones.

4D, on the other hand, in this pressure sequence, is available for introducing a real second suit, which also explains why 6D must be a good suit.

Even if your 5NT does what you suggest it be used for (and I am not convinced without prior agreement) it is ironic that you have to bypass 9 bids simply to search for alternate possible strains.
Somehow I have the feeling that a bid like 4♣ should in theory suggest a general slam interest without being based on clubs, to give opener some room to describe his hand and strength further.
For example switching the meaning of 4♣ (general slam try and of course forcing)) and 4NT (hearts and a secondary club suit)
But it is not a good idea to invent something like this on the spot at the table

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

What is your agreement about 2♣-2N and what do you play over it ?

I would really seek to avoid 3♥ on this sort of hand (essentially balanced) because you would really seek to avoid making it difficult for partner to bid a minor or show his range if balanced.

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2014-September-01, 06:43, said:

For example switching the meaning of 4♣ (general slam try and of course forcing)) and 4NT (hearts and a secondary club suit)
But it is not a good idea to invent something like this on the spot at the table

I had exactly the same thought Rainer, both on using 4♣ artificially and on not baing able to given the circumstances. Knowing Ken, I suspect he had similar ideas.

[aguahombre]

MrAce, on 2014-September-01, 02:19, said:

But..this is not the topic imo. He did not ask us if his system matches to our taste. Why can't we assume that we are a pro and playing the system our client likes and try to tackle the problems with whatever we have in our hand? We don't even have to be a pro in order to play something that would not be our choice -assume we decided it's better/easier for us to play pd's methods than he is playing ours.

If Art decides to reply your question, I am sure he will start telling/explaining a lot of other auctions that they feel the need to keep the way they like, and that it led them to show ♥ positive this way. And it will be a long, off topic discussion which will lead to topic hijack.

Good points; however, from what I have read from Art in the past, he wouldn't have condoned a method like this, nor posted the problems resulting from it on this particular forum. Hence, prompting the question, "WHY?"

The other question I have is: If 3H is the accurate response with this particular hand, why would opener have bid 3NT if he wanted further input without further controls? AK V QXX AKQJTXXX possible?

[kenrexford]

4C as a general check back makes sense. That said, how in the world could a useful natural call be assumed as that meaning instead of the generic 5NT call without discussion?

The problem with 4C as a general force is the loss of a natural club call, which seems important. If I were designing a rare tool for the sequence, 4C would be showing either minor, with a relay to 4D and then flagging the minor. 4D would be the general force. This seems more sound, and it has a convenient parallel to 2 - way check back.

[lamford]

I think 5NT might be interpreted as "bid 6 or 7", in the same way as 2NT-5NT has this meaning. Although I recall Mike Lawrence playing in 5NT in one of the hands in Play a Swiss Teams with Mike Lawrence. You have shown 5+ hearts along the way. I would bid 6NT, but then I would not have told the opponents about the hearts, as they are now more likely to find the right lead depending on whether the hearts are coming in or not. My auction would be 2C-2D-2NT-6NT. Let them find the winning lead if there is one. And, given my methods, I don't fancy my chances of ever reaching seven.

For completeness, a 1000-deal simulation had the following results:
Contract 8 9 10 11 12 13
N NT 4 0 4 132 528 332
This means that 6NT makes about 86% of the time, with seven making 33.2% of the time. I don't know how often the lead matters, but Deep finds it unerringly every time in the simulation!

[whereagles]

ArtK78, on 2014-August-31, 20:35, said:

Qxx
AKQxx
Jxx
xx

2♣ - 3♥
3NT - ?

(1) Do you agree with 3♥?
(2) What is your call over 3NT?

1. No. Your hand is not 1-suited. In fact, it is superb in support of diamonds or spades. This hand bids 2♣-2♥ in standard methods. In your methods if 2♣-2NT (5+ hearts) is not available, it's better to bid 2♣-2♦ and wait for developments. I would say a direct jump should look more like xx KQTxxx Qxx xx.

2. Pard seems to have the 23-24 NT variant, so now 5NT (as in, bid 6 or 7) seems fair.

[ArtK78]

This is the full hand:

AKx
Tx
AKQ98x
Ax

QTx
AKQxx
Jxx
xx

As you can see, there are 13 top tricks. The question is how to get to the grand.

My partner thought that I should do something else over 3NT. He suggested 4♣, asking for aces on the following scale - 0/3, 1/4, 2 minimum, 2 maximum. The point of the asking sequence would be to confirm that we have all of the aces and then make a further ask. Then he can bid the grand looking at 9 tricks in his own hand and assuming that I have enough for 4 more.

I don't think that is best. I would have suggested that he bid 4♦ over 3♥ so as to let me in on the secret about his strong diamond suit.

I think this may be a difficult hand in anything but a relay method, but my 3♥ response to 2♣ was about as likely to get us to the best spot as anything.

[lamford]

whereagles, on 2014-September-01, 11:06, said:

2. Pard seems to have the 23-24 NT variant, so now 5NT (as in, bid 6 or 7) seems fair.

Even though we are told in the OP that a minimum rebid of NT shows 21-22?