[bluenikki]

The hand that crystalized this was

10xxx
Ax
AKQxx
xx

Partner opened 2♣. Yes really. Partnerships with hundreds of discussion hours would know what to do. I replied 3♦. Please hold the jeers. Opener rebid 3♠. I raised to 4, praying it was forcing. It was, so happy ending.

Later, I thought: This is a (relatively) common problem. Your partner opens, you reply with a bid that has no important floor but a very high ceiling, partner bids a suit showing extra power, you fit that suit and have enough undisclosed strength to be in the slam zone.. Less extreme examples:

1♥ - 1♠ - 3♥, and you have opening strength and 3 hearts.

2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ or 3♦, and you have 10 hcp and 3 spades.

Again, if you've had hundreds of discussion hours with documented conclusions, no problem. Otherwise, what?

How about an unsolicited RKC reply, beginning with one step above the single raise? In the examples, beginning with 4♠, 3NT, and 4♥, respectively.

In the first case, that would mean that in order to insist on playing in spades, you'd have to bid 3 then 4. If that feels uncomfortable, then skip over a suit responder has shown.

This gives up the immediate splinter. That wouldn't bother me since I believe that, in auctions like these, a singleton is just another second round control.

Comments?

[mike777]

Many different bidding situations.

In general have a way to agree trumps and start control showing below game.

Brink and Driver, perhaps the number one ranked pair, apparently don't control bid.
They have a way to show relative interest in slam. I don't know how it works.
They admitted they may be off the AK in a side suit but dare you to find it.

[mw64ahw]

a) One school of thought is to only bid 3♦ with 6+♦ +ve
b) Prefer to show keycards rather than ask as you can still identify 2 quick losers although unlikely here.
c) Bid 4N showing even keycards - you could be on for a grand here
d) 7N if you bid like BBO

[DavidKok]

mike777, on 2026-February-20, 07:10, said:

Many different bidding situations.

In general have a way to agree trumps and start control showing below game.

Brink and Driver, perhaps the number one ranked pair, apparently don't control bid.
They have a way to show relative interest in slam. I don't know how it works.
They admitted they may be off the AK in a side suit but dare you to find it.

As far as I know their method works by replacing opportunities to make control bids with opportunities to show enthusiasm. Taking the 1♥-1♠; 3♥-? example, it is somewhat common for 4-of-a-minor to be a control bid for hearts here (though other agreements are possible, most importantly 'natural' is also a fine agreement). Using their approach as I understand it, and keep in mind they might not play it on this auction but it's just for illustration, you could instead play

• 4♣: Very positive about slam.
  
• 4♦: Willing to cooperate with a slam try but nothing amazing.
  
• 4♥: No slam interest at all.

I believe this general principle is reused and forms the basis of their alternative to control bidding.

bluenikki, on 2026-February-20, 07:01, said:

Later, I thought: This is a (relatively) common problem. Your partner opens, you reply with a bid that has no important floor but a very high ceiling, partner bids a suit showing extra power, you fit that suit and have enough undisclosed strength to be in the slam zone.

Indeed, this a concern. Modern systems tend to solve this on the previous round(s) - limit the hands early, have tools to establish a cheap game force so that both hands can describe without worry of being dropped, and minimise the number and frequency of situations where this might occur. Note that this also gains when we're not looking for a slam - it's just good bridge. The scenario you describe is indeed a problem, but it tends to show up most commonly when strong hands make ludicrous jump bids. By using a more efficient bidding system we can often establish the degree of fit and have space to spare for a strength inquiry, sometimes using modern tools such as (Non)Serious 3NT or Last Train.

bluenikki, on 2026-February-20, 07:01, said:

Less extreme examples:

1♥ - 1♠ - 3♥, and you have opening strength and 3 hearts.

2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ or 3♦, and you have 10 hcp and 3 spades.

Again, if you've had hundreds of discussion hours with documented conclusions, no problem. Otherwise, what?

Speaking specifically to these examples:

• Support with support! I play Maas 2NT in part because the 1♥-1♠; 2/3bananas-? starts are extremely awkward if we haven't show our heart fit yet. With a hand in the 0-5, 6-9 or (9)10-14 ranges, I show heart support ahead of introducing my spades. With a hand in the 14+ range I would give serious consideration to a game forcing artificial 2♣ followed by raising hearts, ahead of bidding spades. It's only when I both am in the slam zone and have 5(+) spades that I would bid 1♠ first and risk this awkward auction. Some modern gadgets also reduce this problem in other ways - notably, Gazzilli limits the 3♥ rebid more and reduces both the frequency and the probability of us having slam interest opposite.
  
• On 2♣-2♦; 2♠-? I don't understand the problem with a strong hand opposite with three spades - just raise to 3♠. Sorry, I don't get which auction you're thinking of.

I want to be blunt and point out that these are nonstandard but are common bidding situations relying on foundational bridge theory, at low levels of the auction. I think the 'hundreds of discussion hours' are at best a lazy excuse - these methods would be worth discussing sometime in the first few hours of the partnership to me (though of course not in the first few hours of playing bridge at all, new players should worry about other things first). You may well decide on a different approach, e.g. showing spades ahead of heart support, but at least know that you're gaining something and losing something else in the process.

bluenikki, on 2026-February-20, 07:01, said:

How about an unsolicited RKC reply, beginning with one step above the single raise? In the examples, beginning with 4♠, 3NT, and 4♥, respectively.

In the first case, that would mean that in order to insist on playing in spades, you'd have to bid 3 then 4. If that feels uncomfortable, then skip over a suit responder has shown.

This gives up the immediate splinter. That wouldn't bother me since I believe that, in auctions like these, a singleton is just another second round control.

Comments?

I strongly dislike this suggestion. To me it reads like you're trying to solve a gap in your system that should have been addressed at the 2-level by reallocating what little space remains for an inefficient slam try. What's more, you're joining the well-filled ranks of people using ace-asking as the(ir only) slam investigation gadget. Stop jumping with strong hands! That goes for both you and partner. You wouldn't be in this mess if the bids didn't preempt yourself so much.

bluenikki, on 2026-February-20, 07:01, said:

I replied 3♦. Please hold the jeers.

I understand wanting to bid the diamonds, but I think 2♦ is better. Deals like this always have me scared that partner opened some terrible 2♣ with 16 HCP and a long suit 'but I was so close to game, partner', not understanding how much pressure this puts on the rest of the auction and on the hand evaluation. Opening 2♣ is a last resort, a necessary evil that hitches a ride on the strength of the wide ranging natural 1-level openings. In my partnerships the situation is a bit easier: 2♣ shows 22+ Miltons almost always (I've made some exceptions with nice 21-counts, but haven't had to dip lower really), so with your beautiful 13 opposite you can safely drive to a small slam and can bid slowly to look for the likely grand.

[mike777]

Yes from what I gathered that is how Brink and Driver do it. I have a feeling there is more to it..

[bluenikki]

[quote name='DavidKok' timestamp='1771595104' post='1087758'Modern systems tend to solve this on the previous round(s) - you're joining the well-filled ranks of people using ace-asking as the(ir only) slam investigation gadget.
[/quote]
No, this is ace-answering, ending up below game. I personally ask for aces only on freaks.

[DavidKok]

mike777, on 2026-February-20, 07:53, said:

Yes from what I gathered that is how Brink and Driver do it. I have a feeling there is more to it..

Presumably yes, though maybe this is slightly helpful context. There are some adjacent agreements that are very popular in the Netherlands at higher level:

• Last Train.
  
• Nonserious 3NT.
  
• On 1M-(3X), use 4♣ as the slam try in the major and 4X as a strong clubs bids (though more regularly people will make a takeout double with the clubs hand instead). Over this 4♣, Last Train is in play.
  
• On 1M-2NT (Maas), a 3♦ bid says 'I have a little extra but I cannot quite take the lead. Can you?' - same principle but now it's a game try.
  
• This style of non-standard 'Last Train' also shows up in other competitive auctions, as well as on slam tries at the 5-level and 6-level. As a simple example, on the auction (1♣)-1♥-(1♠)-2♣*; (P)-? where 2♣ is a good heart raise I would expect 2♦ to mean 'I do not have a garbage hand, game might still be possible, but I also do not want to go past 2♥ without help' without prior discussion when playing with a Dutch expert, and to convey no information at all about diamonds.

In general there are a bunch of scenarios where it has become ubiquitous in Dutch bidding to reserve the only available bid as a general 'do you like your hand?' inquiry in whatever context of the auction we have thus far, and in some scenarios people are making swaps to specifically free up room to allow for such asking bids (see also Brink-Drijver's approach on contested auctions at the 1-level, for example!). I think the current Brink-Drijver approach is taking this princple to the logical extreme, doing away with control bids in favour of a multi-layered strength asking structure.

[DavidKok]

bluenikki, on 2026-February-20, 07:58, said:

No, this is ace-answering, ending up below game. I personally ask for aces only on freaks.

Sorry, in my opinion this is semantics only. The flaw is relying on communicating aces at all as the primary slam gadget - I don't really care that it's showing instead of asking this time.
Degree of fit, availability of side suits, strength of the hands (trick-taking potential) and control of the side suits (sorry Brink-Drijver) are in my opinion much more important than showing or asking about aces. I'd rather allocate the available bidding space to something else.
I'm also a bit disappointed that, after writing a long and detailed reply suggesting improvements everywhere else, this is your initial response.

[bluenikki]

DavidKok, on 2026-February-20, 07:45, said:

IOn 2♣-2♦; 2♠-? I don't understand the problem with a strong hand opposite with three spades - just raise to 3♠. Sorry, I don't get which auction you're thinking of.

Almost always, after you have just raised to 3, the auction will have reached the five level, without revealing the strength of your hand.

Put it another way, raising to 3 cannot encompass the range of degrees of slam interest. In this proposal, raising to 3 is mild, unsolicited RKC is bright

[mw64ahw]

Staring 2♣-2♦-2♠ I'd start cue-bidding as responder with 4♦ and there should be enough space to get to 7N if warranted.
Simply if opener has 8.5 tricks and you as responder you have 4 Its very unlikely that you're stopping short of a slam

[mikeh]

Whenever I play with a good player with whom I do not have an established partnership one of the topics I always discuss is 2C auctions. In particular I insist that a suit positive is bid only with a very simple hand, typically some 5332 or 6322 or 6331. Never with anything resembling a 2+suiter and never with value’s where responder is expecting to drive to slam opposite a normal minimum 2C bid.

So 2 D is for all such complex/strong hands as well as for the ‘normal’ waiting sort of response. The idea is to allow opener to describe his hand cheaply, without being preempted by responder. Admittedly it works better in my main partnership, in which we have a complex structure over his most common rebid, 2N (or 2N after a kokish relay sequence) but my experience is that staying out of the way is a big winner even with crude 2N methods.

I gather opener bids 2S over 2D. 10xxx Ax AKQxx xx is pretty close to keycard, lol. I’d assume I’m getting 4 diamond tricks and can probably count tricks after keycard. However, I strain not to keycard if I have any doubts about being able to place the contract optimally so at the table I’d bid 3S. I am hauling out keycard over partner’s 4C. I’m bidding 4D over 3N and then 5H in the event that he bids 4S over 4D.

[jillybean]

I ask partners to do the same, without the level of sophistication you have, yet.
5332 looks balanced, I want a 6 card suit for a positive response.

[bluenikki]

DavidKok, on 2026-February-20, 08:08, said:

I'm also a bit disappointed that, after writing a long and detailed reply suggesting improvements everywhere else, this is your initial response.

Your suggestions may not entail hundreds of hours, but certainly dozens. Plural.

[bluenikki]

bluenikki, on 2026-February-20, 07:01, said:

The hand that crystalized this was

10xxx
Ax
AKQxx
xx

Partner opened 2♣. Yes really. Partnerships with hundreds of discussion hours would know what to do. I replied 3♦. Please hold the jeers. Opener rebid 3♠. I raised to 4, praying it was forcing. It was, so happy ending.

Later, I thought: This is a (relatively) common problem. Your partner opens, you reply with a bid that has no important floor but a very high ceiling, partner bids a suit showing extra power, you fit that suit and have enough undisclosed strength to be in the slam zone.. Less extreme examples:

1♥ - 1♠ - 3♥, and you have opening strength and 3 hearts.

2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ or 3♦, and you have 10 hcp and 3 spades.

Again, if you've had hundreds of discussion hours with documented conclusions, no problem. Otherwise, what?

How about an unsolicited RKC reply, beginning with one step above the single raise? In the examples, beginning with 4♠, 3NT, and 4♥, respectively.

In the first case, that would mean that in order to insist on playing in spades, you'd have to bid 3 then 4. If that feels uncomfortable, then skip over a suit responder has shown.

This gives up the immediate splinter. That wouldn't bother me since I believe that, in auctions like these, a singleton is just another second round control.

Comments?

I appreciate the comments, but I am not convinced they apply for a casual partnership. Maybe infrequent would be a better word.

But I have something to say about suit responses to 2♣, which is unrelated to my question.

Among hands with 16+ hcp, only 23.7% have a 6+ suit or two 5s. As the hcp rises, the percentage drops. For these, showing a good suit _may_ make opener's auction difficult. For the vast majority of the other 76.3%, though, the information will be welcome. And the 2♣ opener's rebid may make it difficult or impossible to convey the strength of the suit.

[mikeh]

bluenikki, on 2026-February-20, 12:01, said:

I appreciate the comments, but I am not convinced they apply for a casual partnership. Maybe infrequent would be a better word.

But I have something to say about suit responses to 2♣, which is unrelated to my question.

Among hands with 16+ hcp, only 23.7% have a 6+ suit or two 5s. As the hcp rises, the percentage drops. For these, showing a good suit _may_ make opener's auction difficult. For the vast majority of the other 77.3%, though, the information will be welcome. And the 2♣ opener's rebid may make it difficult or impossible to convey the strength of the suit.

I have no idea what you think your statistics show or imply for 2C auctions. And your initial auction should convince you that your ideas are misguided

After 2C 3D 3S you had to hope that 4S was forcing. Say you held 10xx xx KQJxxx xx. Would you now hope that 4S was non forcing? Or are you happy to force to the 5 level opposite AKxxxx KQx x AKQ. Maybe you never lose a trump trick with that 6=3 fit, lol.or what would you bid over 3S with xx xxx AKJxx xxx?

Just take a moment, put your biases to one side, and ask whether the partnership is more or less in a good position after 1C 2D 2S 3S or your guessing auction of 2C 3D 3S 4S. Not ‘is opener in a better position’. Whether the partnership is in a better position.

As for your last point…wtf is your worry about opener got to do with this hand? The ONLY issue is grand or small and it’s going to be responder’s job to address that issue…and he is looking at his hand. So who gives a rat’s ass about not having shown your hand? As if you had, on your guessing/praying that he won’t pass auction, lol

[Cyberyeti]

We play 2♣-positive F4N unless you already know a suit is open so 4♠ is definitely forcing

We would have the choice of showing this hand as balanced or as diamonds, either way we find spades