[DavidKok]

smerriman, on 2021-September-30, 17:57, said:

I suspect you might have missed the part of the first post where 3♣ promised extras.

I don't know why I write such long replies, honestly. It's just more ammo for you to quote out of context. Oh well, once more into the breach...

I would open most 11-counts with 5♥4♣ at this vulnerability, so the "14 points" I mentioned are already a king more than a minimum opening. In fact, I'd open a bunch of good 10-counts, even without a sixth heart or fifth club. A lot of pairs place great emphasis on bidding shape, and will for example rebid 3♣ over 2♦ with a hand like ♠x, ♥ATxxx, ♦Kxx, ♣KQJx - the diamonds have improved, you get to show your second suit and 13 points is not, strictly, a minimum. All of these are extras (and it is very reasonable to bid this while simultaneously insisting 3♣ promises extras), but they are not points, and a misfit 13 opposite our lousy 15 does not make a slam. In fact, some partnerships may well rebid 3♣ on ♠xx, ♥ATxxx, ♦A, ♣KJT9x, all the while insisting it shows extras.

The first mention of "extras" specifically mentions 6NT, which is far from cold opposite a minimum 3♣ rebid. It would be nice to distinguish, say, 13-point shapely minima from 19-point powerhouses.

My second mention of "extras" was in the context of having already shown a non-minimum with 3♣, and I really think suggesting I implied otherwise is pedantic. The relevant question on the 2=5=2=4 hand shape is whether or not we can make 6NT (or possibly 6♥/6♣ in the 7-card fit), which takes far more than a minimum in context of the extras shown by the 3♣ bid. The problem is that partner might have third round rebid issues when trying to show those extra values.

The third mention lists 14 as the minimum, and I am specifically worried about missing a fine 6NT if partner is under the old-fashioned impression that we can count on a good 15-count for the 3♣, and hence does not take extra action with an OK 17 or 18. If, however, partner would also bid 3♣ with more shape-oriented hands (all the while still promising extras!), I expect partner to bid 4NT instead of 3NT over 3♠ holding the 17-counts, and I can safely pass 3NT instead.

In hindsight I should have just said I would bid 3♠, and let you guess at my motivation. So far I have learned nothing new, and I suspect neither have you, so my efforts have been a pure time sink.

[smerriman]

Yikes, looks like I caught you on a bad day. Wasn't trying to have a go at all - initially read the first two mentions of minimum in the context you intended, but when I got to the point where you asked if 3♣ could be bid on a shapely minimum or whether it shows extras, figured you must have missed the extras bit and went back and reinterpreted the rest.

To me (and the OP, based on earlier posts), 'extras' means at least 15 points, so referring to minimums and 14 counts didn't make sense to me.

I apologise if I offended you.

[mw64ahw]

Winstonm, on 2021-September-30, 11:40, said:

Maybe I'm just old fashioned (maybe ) but I have an adverse reaction to using Keycard with an uncontrolled suit. Maybe that's a leftover from years of simple Blackwood.

This was one of the reasons I moved to showing keycards & controls rather than asking for keycards.

However In this case if you felt inclined to move above 4♥ then there are no additional Kings to show so a 5♥ bid shows KQ ♥ plus 2 additional keycards. North has controls in all suits so can make the slam decision.

Perhaps it would have been better for North to bid 3♠ either denying a stopper for NT or showing a control for the slam try leading to:
3♠ - 4♣ implies KQ ♥(skipping 3NT) rather than 3 small (with Hxx I use Jacoby)
4♦ (♦ control) - 5♥ (slam invite no further Kings to show w. 3 keycards knowing that the ♦ control is in place)
North's choice

After the 3♠ bid South has the opportunity to sign-off in 3NT or 4♥

[Winstonm]

smerriman, on 2021-September-30, 21:15, said:

2♥ doesn't *promise* 6, but you'd still bid it with virtually all 6-4 hands, wouldn't you? If partner continues with 2♠ or 2N, your next 3♣ bid now shows the 6-4; if partner bids 3♣ you're also happy, while if you hear a 3♦ rebid you probably don't want to show 4 clubs anyway.

2H followed by 3C is weaker than Hearts,Clubs, Hearts. That has been a pretty standard understanding among those I played with and against.

[akwoo]

I bid 3N. Yes this is wimpy, but I have a rather mediocre 15 count. If partner has 18 or even a good 17, surely they'd bid 4N.

BTW, 4N here is a quantitative invite in NT for me.

[Winstonm]

akwoo, on 2021-October-01, 20:40, said:

I bid 3N. Yes this is wimpy, but I have a rather mediocre 15 count. If partner has 18 or even a good 17, surely they'd bid 4N.

BTW, 4N here is a quantitative invite in NT for me.

I’m surprised by your reluctance. This is quite a good hand in a suit contract, especially if partner has a 6th heart. Bidding nt in this sequence to me suggests less of a fit and better spades.

[Douglas43]

Partner could have cue bid over 3♥ but hasn't. That does not bode well for slam. I'd chicken out.

[Winstonm]

Douglas43, on 2021-October-01, 23:30, said:

Partner could have cue bid over 3♥ but hasn't. That does not bode well for slam. I'd chicken out.

You might consider that partner showed extra values missing 9 points from his suits - if he stretched a bit for his bid it would likely be due to holding cards in diamonds. It’s hard to visualize a hand that doesn’t make slam that would be bid the same way. With 3514 2N is as likely a rebid as 3C.