[mikeh]

Snce David gave us how he plays xzy after 1D 1S 1N:

2C forces 2D. Responder is either passing or about to make a natural, invitational bid

2D artificial game force. Doesn’t promise 5+ spades but in practice he is overwhelmingly likely to have 5+ spades, usually exactly 5

2N puppets to 3C. Responder may be passing but may have mild or stronger slam interest with 4 spades and 5+ diamonds. Over 3C, 3D is short clubs, 3H is short hearts, 3S s a strong slam move with 4252 and 3N is a mild slam try with 4252.

3C/D/H are all slam try 5=5 or better hands

3S is 6+ spades, good suit, slam interest. With same values but weaker suit, bid 2D then 3S.



However, in my main partnership these sequences do not exist. 1D 1S 1N shows 4+ clubs, since 1D is unbalanced and we have no natural 1N rebid.

[mike777]

Even in T-Walsh, this is still a tough hand with decisions for me.

Not an easy, straight forward hand.

1C-1H
1S-2D
2H-3D
?
1C=2+
1H=4+ spades
1S= 11-13 Bal, 2-3 spades
2D= artificial gf, check back (XYZ)
2H=4H, does not deny 3 spades
3D= natural, 5+S and 4+D
?

At this point opener rebids 3NT or raises Diamonds


I think opener needs to choose 4D
They have 4D diamonds to the Ace that responder has no idea of

Now 5D, by responding hand.

[jillybean]

 HardVector, on 2026-September-09, 14:20, said:

There is one concept that will help you here. You don't pull games to play in partscores. After 3n, if you bid 4d (forcing), you can explore slams without going past 4n.

---

So this auction could continue
4♥:4♠
5♦

[jillybean]

---

I am having a good conversation with my partner about this hand, but another wrinkle that came up is that they don't want to leave it in 3NT with their cards.

[mikeh]

 jillybean, on 2026-September-10, 11:43, said:

---

I am having a good conversation with my partner about this hand, but another wrinkle that came up is that they don't want to leave it in 3NT with their cards.

It’s understandable that east is reluctant to pass 3N, but maybe yiur partner should think just for a second. Can he construct hands on which 6D has no play? Answer: unless he’s a complete *****…yes. Kx AQJx xxxxx Qx is one that took longer to type than to picture.

Next question: is there any hurry to bid 6D? Answer: no. Wtf does your partner think 4D would mean? As Hard Vector observed early in the thread, pulling 3N to 4D is a slam try. Opener is expected to have listened to the auction and to evaluate his side controls, his spade holding and his diamond holding, having already shown club and heart stoppers by bidding 3N. Is his hand, given the context, slam suitable?

To me, it’s below average. Yes, the red aces are good. The heart queen is dubious, but swap responders clubs and hearts and obviously it’s very good. There’s no way to tell. I’d bid 4H anyway and over partner’s likely 4S, I’d bid 5D. Partner should realize that there’s no room in my hand for heart and (soft) club stoppers, the diamond Ace and the spade king…specially since Kx of spades will often be 3S over 3D. Kx Axxx Axxx Qxx is possible. Btw, with that holding, I’d bid 4N over 4S but I realize that for most posters this is keycard, no matter how silly it is to have opener using keycard. As always, most posters here can’t imagine bidding slam without keycard. To me 4N says ‘I have no club control but, in the context of the auction so far, the rest of my hand looks pretty good’. That way responder, with say AKxxx void KQJxx Kxx can bid the slam in relative comfort.

[jillybean]

Full hand; does it make on any lead, with the spade hook?

---

...clubs are a problem?

[kgr]

 akwoo, on 2026-September-09, 13:46, said:

East should bid 3D over 1N and respect partner's 3N decision after that.

Same for me: 3D shows 5-5 and good hand (slam try). West bids 3NT and that is the end contract.
This is easy: jump in new suit or in partners suit is 5-5 and Good hand.

[WasWinM]

 jillybean, on 2026-September-10, 12:24, said:

Full hand; does it make on any lead, with the spade hook?

---

...clubs are a problem?

No, you can pitch one losing club on the heart ace. The issue is only spades, 84% that the missing 6 are either 3-3 or 4-2, so you get half of that (50% times 84% for the king onside) or a slam that should make about 42% of the time. For IMPs, the theoretical break even point for small slams is 50%.

[DavidKok]

 apollo1201, on 2026-September-10, 05:48, said:

Thanks David for the details
Does it mean 2NT is a transfer to 3C, potentially a weak hand that will stop there? While 2C then 3C is encouraging (eg a 4S + 5-6C about 10-11 points?).
How do you propose NT with only 4 spades? 2C then 2NT while 2C then 2S is inv with 5 cards?

All correct. Technically 2♣-then-2♠ is 5(+), not exactly 5. In practice with a known fit I'm liable to blast or pass.

[kgr]

Testing my program:
1) After 3NT should E bid more without knowing exact W hand?
Conditions given:
S: 0-11 HCP
W: 12-14 HCP, 2cS, 4cH, 4-5cD, 2-3cC
=> 3NT is the best contract, Note that I did not enter a condition that W has a Heart stopper, that would probably make 3NT better.
Contract Make% Score E Avg tricks
----------------------------------------------------
3NT W 93.3% 580 9.92
5♦ E 83.3% 489 11.27
6♦ E 39.8% 467 11.27
7♦ E 7.3% -16 11.27
2) With the given E and W hands and 6D contract:
With small S lead from N: 48% to make
With small H lead from N: 53% to make
With small C lead from N: 51% to make

[mikeh]

kgr, on 2026-September-10, 16:02, said:

Testing my program:
1) After 3NT should E bid more without knowing exact W hand?
Conditions given:
S: 0-11 HCP
W: 12-14 HCP, 2cS, 4cH, 4-5cD, 2-3cC
=> 3NT is the best contract, Note that I did not enter a condition that W has a Heart stopper, that would probably make 3NT better.
Contract Make% Score E Avg tricks
----------------------------------------------------
3NT W 93.3% 580 9.92
5♦ E 83.3% 489 11.27
6♦ E 39.8% 467 11.27
7♦ E 7.3% -16 11.27
2) With the given E and W hands and 6D contract:
With small S lead from N: 48% to make
With small H lead from N: 53% to make
With small C lead from N: 51% to make

Simulations can be helpful but not here.

Stipulating 12-14 hcp is fine. Stipulating the shape as you have is ok. But your simulation treats xx KQJx Axxx QJx the same as Kx Axxx Axxx Qxx which is silly. I’m not going to bother to do the math but on the first one slam is less than 50% while on the second it’s very good, to the point that missing it will almost always cost you a lot of imps in a strong field. And how about Kx Jxxx Axxx AJx?

Good players know both how to visualize hands and how to explore. Imo, especially at imps, east should visualize hands for opener, consistent with the bidding to 3N, in order to see firstly whether slam is possible, secondly to assess whether it’s likely that the partners can find out what they need to know and thirdly whether learning that slam is unlikely places the partnership in serious jeopardy

Here, as east I’d definitely be thinking about slam. Then I’d be thinking about how to find out what I need to know or how I can help partner figure it out.

I need primarily the spade king and the diamond ace. I’m not worried about two quick losers in clubs. Partner could have stalled over 3D with nothing in clubs because he can’t know I’m not both short and weak there.

A good player as west will be thrilled by Kx in spades and by the trump ace, so I have to give him a chance. While 5D will occasionally be worse than 3N, it usually won’t be and could be superior on some layouts. Plus we can always stop in 4N. Ok, many posters here struggle with the notion that 4N isn’t always keycard, but I’m assuming a moderate level. of competence or why bother?

Bridge is played by simply counting hcp or even hcp and shape. It’s played by assessing how well our values mesh, based on the bidding to the point of decision. Simulations such as yours miss the point.

[kgr]

mikeh, on 2026-September-10, 21:20, said:

Simulations can be helpful but not here.

Stipulating 12-14 hcp is fine. Stipulating the shape as you have is ok. But your simulation treats xx KQJx Axxx QJx the same as Kx Axxx Axxx Qxx which is silly. I’m not going to bother to do the math but on the first one slam is less than 50% while on the second it’s very good, to the point that missing it will almost always cost you a lot of imps in a strong field. And how about Kx Jxxx Axxx AJx?

Good players know both how to visualize hands and how to explore. Imo, especially at imps, east should visualize hands for opener, consistent with the bidding to 3N, in order to see firstly whether slam is possible, secondly to assess whether it’s likely that the partners can find out what they need to know and thirdly whether learning that slam is unlikely places the partnership in serious jeopardy

Here, as east I’d definitely be thinking about slam. Then I’d be thinking about how to find out what I need to know or how I can help partner figure it out.

I need primarily the spade king and the diamond ace. I’m not worried about two quick losers in clubs. Partner could have stalled over 3D with nothing in clubs because he can’t know I’m not both short and weak there.

A good player as west will be thrilled by Kx in spades and by the trump ace, so I have to give him a chance. While 5D will occasionally be worse than 3N, it usually won’t be and could be superior on some layouts. Plus we can always stop in 4N. Ok, many posters here struggle with the notion that 4N isn’t always keycard, but I’m assuming a moderate level. of competence or why bother?

Bridge is played by simply counting hcp or even hcp and shape. It’s played by assessing how well our values mesh, based on the bidding to the point of decision. Simulations such as yours miss the point.

Yes, you are right. But the simulation shows that the jump to 6D is anti-percentage. And logic says that it is more anti-percentage than the simulation shows.
("Bridge is played by simply counting": I think that you missed "Not" here)

[Kaitlyn S]

One distinction that seems to be missing is whether it's matcpoints or IMPs. I believe the meanings of all the bids change depending on that distinction. First, matchpoints. You never want to play 5D when you can make ten tricks in notrump. So, West is going to bid 3NT over 3D more often. When East bids 4D over 3NT, it's unlikely to be looking for a safer game; 6D really has to have a strong shot, or at least be able to play 4NT if partner has an unsuitable hand for slam.

Yes, because it's matchpoints, I believe that West's biggest turnoff for slam should be 4NT to play which means that a lot of West's hand is in heart and club quacks. This also means that East should be less inclined to try for a pushy slam if ten tricks in notrump might be difficult. I do understand that there are times when 5D is the only makeable game. They aren't that common, and I believe the winning matchpoint player pays off to those hands at times. Unless you are playing in my Monday night non-sanctioned duplicate where you're almost playing IMPS because you want to make sure you beat the pairs in 1S, 2D, and 3D (and yes, I guarantee if I put this hand in there, a third of the pairs will be in partscore.) Of course, in that game, trying for a pushy slam is just crazy.

Compare this to IMPs where it's perfectly okay to play 5D much of the time as long as 5D is relatively cold. Here, West has less incentive to bid 3NT over 3D so that. Also in IMPs, when East pulls 3NT to 4D, you're probably playing in diamonds so 4NT probably is some sort of key card ask. East needs to be a little more serious about slam to pull 3NT here because West is going to bid 3NT less often, and when she does, it's on hands that aren't slam suitable.

I'm not really a strong XYZ player - I have agreed to play it but I have never played a hand where it was involved. I presume that 1D-1S-1NT-2D-2H denies 3S? If so, then I think that the vast majority of hands where West is holding S-Kx are going to bid 3S at either type of scoring, since that will usually be a great holding for a slam-minded East. If East takes West's lack of a 3S bid into account, East has to imagine a hand where slam is better than 50% opposite two small spades (unless West is the kind of player who often rebids 1NT with a singleton - ugh!). On the actual hand, because of the heart void, West could have the DA and the CAK but I think it's unrealistic to assume that you can work that out after 4D, or to assume that partner bid 3NT without values in hearts.

[mycroft]

snippets from a long ago end (sorry, two tournaments in two weeks, I've been a bit bridged out):

• As many said, 4♦ is forcing. Even if 2♦ GF is "forcing to 3NT", you only get to pass 4m if the pair has tried for 3NT and failed. Here, not only did we try, we bid it.
  
• You can play your XYZ how you want, but most around here play something similar to Mike's line, where 3m rebids are "picture" - 5=5, probably, cards in the suits, slam interest. I'd be happy (if I remembered, it never comes up) to bid that with this hand, and pass 3NT.
  
• 6♦ isn't that bad a contract, really, at least at matchpoints. You absolutely expect to make 3NT (from partner's side) when dummy comes down, and probably during the auction, too - assuming you're someone who thinks about what partner's hand looks like, and has a partner who does too. If only 5♦ makes, then we'd better hope that only 3NT makes (even with unlucky or poor defence), as 630 beats 600. If slam is on, then almost certainly 3NT makes 630, which beats 620 if you don't bid it. Pulling is already the gamble; after that, how much more is going for the brass ring?
  
• But given the two opportunities East had to show their hand and let partner in on the decision (and the third, really, pulling at all instead of trusting that partner has the hearts locked down, and therefore probably doesn't have the black cards we need, when she bid 3NT) and chose calls that kept control instead, I think we can score up a little bit of mastermind/play with people she can't trust/slams are cool. And frankly, given that minor suit slams *are* so hard to bid, I can see a bit of that last.