[pescetom]

mike777, on 2026-October-17, 08:12, said:

On this one, I handled it poorly in the bidding. We still gained a tiny bit in the play.

I chose 2NT, pard bid 3H.
We don't have any special agreements now.

I can pass as partner can be very minimum but I bid 4H.

akwoo, on 2026-October-17, 09:45, said:

For a very long time, people played unusual NT and Michaels as split-range, either less than opening or significantly stronger, precisely because of the problem you faced.

The problem has been solved with Michaels - advancer has two ways of asking for the minor - 2N is invitational+ and 3C is weak pass/correct (and 3D is invitational in the major). It is not solved with unusual NT (especially when your suits are clubs and diamonds), which is why many people still play it as split range.

I don't see the problem with full range Unusual NT, except maybe for the luxury of being able to show slam interest even opposite a weak intervention?
Surely one can just control-bid one of the other two suits (in this case 3♠) to show slam interest opposite a strong intervention?

Probably missing something, hard afternoon with beginners

[akwoo]

pescetom, on 2026-October-17, 14:36, said:

I don't see the problem with full range Unusual NT, except maybe for the luxury of being able to show slam interest even opposite a weak intervention?
Surely one can just control-bid one of the other two suits (in this case 3♠) to show slam interest opposite a strong intervention?

Probably missing something, hard afternoon with beginners

The problem with full range unusual NT is precisely this hand. If you bid 2N, then partner could bid 3H with anything from Qxxxx Kx xx xxxx (or worse) to xxx KQx Axx xxxx. How can you make any informed decision about whether to bid 4H or not?

If you want to argue advancer should bid 4H on xxx KQx Axx xxxx - are you really not making an unusual NT bid on Qx AJxxx Kxxxx x, particularly white?

[pescetom]

akwoo, on 2026-October-17, 19:13, said:

The problem with full range unusual NT is precisely this hand. If you bid 2N, then partner could bid 3H with anything from Qxxxx Kx xx xxxx (or worse) to xxx KQx Axx xxxx. How can you make any informed decision about whether to bid 4H or not?

If you want to argue advancer should bid 4H on xxx KQx Axx xxxx - are you really not making an unusual NT bid on Qx AJxxx Kxxxx x, particularly white?

I was arguing (or more precisely, wondering about the idea) that Advancer should make a positive preference for the major on a fair number of hands (maybe a little better than this one, Intervener would still be free to rebid over a negative preference when holding a real max). You're probably right that the positive preference should not be above 3 in the major, to maximise the chance of being allowed to play there when Intervener is minimum. But that seems feasible when opponent's bid was 1m, we have the 3m cue available to show a positive hearts preference and 3H to show a negative hearts preference. When opponent's bid was 1M, we cannot avoid going above 3m when positive in a minor but that is less of a concern because they are probably going to compete in a major anyway: maybe put pressure on by playing the 3M cue as an unspecified minor positive (now 3N by Intervener is max and 4C min pass/correct).