kgr

Don't you have the option to accept the lead, but play it yourself?

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq432hdakjckj32&n=s65hqj32dq32caq54&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1sp1np2c(Crowhurst)p2dp3sp3np4cp4sp5hDBLpp6sppp]266|200[/hv] Making 7 when ♠ were 2-2. (Maybe partner had ♠J or some Tens, otherwise it looks a very weak opening) - I thought that 4♣ showed ♣, but my partner (correctly) thought that ♠ fit was set and that 4♣ was control. - I thought that 4♥ was voidwood, but my partner (probably correct again) thought it was control in ♥ and asked for a ♦ control. Bidding 3♣ iso 3♠ could have made the bidding go easier, but probably it would go: 1C-1S 1NT-2C 2D-3C 3NT-?? Is 4H voidwood now? (Probably it is more important to verify why partner didn't bid 2H iso 2D :) Maybe we don't play real Crowhurst after all)

Then we play mini-crowhurst :): We don't have the agreements about 3m

This is a rule we agreed upon (I thought already before, but at least after this bidding :) ). Maybe splinter is more useful when opps don't seem to compete, but for me it is more important to have clear agreements that we are sure that both of us remember. We now agreed: 1♠-(2♣)-3♣-(Pass)-??: - 3♥: Trial with ♥ (needing more help in ♥ then in ♦) OR Slam interest with 4+♥ - 4♥: 4+♥, probably 5. Enough to play 4M, but not (yet) interested to bid more. => 4♥ iso 4♠ to help partner decide if opps bid 5♣. (Bidding ♥ is more useful if RHO dbl'ed or bid 4♣)

MP's [hv=pc=n&s=sh65432dakq32ca32&n=sk32hakj7dj654c54&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d1s2h2s3hp4hppp]266|200[/hv] Making 7 when the ♥ were 2-2. I wasn't sure to go over 4♥ with these bad ♥. But now I think that 4♠ is the best bid (Partner will most likely have some ♥ honors (no ♦ honors, and probably not much in ♠).

It is MP's. Is 4♠ (voidwood) not better then 6♦ at MP's?

Yes (1♦ always promises 4c♦) I'm not even sure that we play Crowhurst. 2♣ asks 3c Support and strength. (2♦ is natural and non-forcing) No, Opener can still be 3433. I'm not sure that it is the correct name for what we play (see '?' in the alert). 2♣ followed by 3♣ is also GF slam try.

Hm, Yes

4NT followed by Q-Ask?

Makes sense See alert: 1♣=2+♣ (We open 5542)We play that 2♠ is weak. We play 1430 RKC, but voidwood: 0-1-2-3 (I thought that this was standard?)But I can agree with 5♥-5NT-6♣....

4♠ would be. I think 5♦ as well.

Double post removed

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1s2c3c(3cS%20limit+%20or%204cS%207-10)p4h]133|100[/hv] 3♣ promised a ♠-fit. What is 4♥ here for you? Strength & ♥ Length or shortage? (And would it be different if East had bid 4♣?) (If length: what is the difference with 3♥?)

MP's [hv=pc=n&s=sakqxxxhdakjckjxx&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c(2+)p1sp1np2c(Asking%20%5Bcrowhurst%3F%5D)p2d(min%2C%20nothing%20to%20say)p3s(GF%20with%20S)p3np]133|200[/hv] - Should 4♣ now be control for ♠ or be ♣? - Should 5♥ be voidwood for ♠? How do you continue? Will you be able to check for the Queens?

MP's [hv=pc=n&s=shxxxxxdakqxxcaxx&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d(4+)1s2h(forcing)2s3h(fit%2C%20not%20forcing)p]133|200[/hv] How do you continue from here?

Is 3♠ by partner promising a 6c♠? Should partner always bid 3♥ if he has nothing to say?

North didn't have ♠J (I know she did only have 18 pts). That will probably change your view completely.

Thanks all for the answers. 3NT+4 scored 66.7% (This is not a very strong field): 3x 3N+4 1x 6N= 2x 3N+2 1x 6D-1 (West didn't bid her Hearts and did lead Heart for a ruff by East)

Thanks all for the answers. Amazingly 3NT+1 was 100% score when is was played by us and scored 66.67% at the end.

I thought that I could bid 3♣ and partner would show her 5c♥ is she had one. But she told me that 3♣ can also be bid with a problem in ♦ or ♥; and therefor: 1♠-1NT 2♣-2NT 3♣-? :3♥ can be 4c♥ but is often only showing a ♥ stopper.

1S-1NT-2C-? : 3H=6cH and Max; 3NT=5cH and Max

No agreement. But logically it is 5xx4 (because 5xx5 could start with 2NT iso 2♣) and no hand for 3NT (too good or a missing stopper in ♦ or ♥. Maybe 3♥ is a better bid than 3♣

She could, but that would be non-forcing and ask ♦ support for 3NT. Probably North thought that her hand was to good for it.

Wrong title; should be: Missed 6C at MP's [hv=pc=n&s=skqjt2ha432dcakj2&n=s43h5dak5432cqt43&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp1np2c(general%20forcing%20inquiry)p2n(max%2C%20no%205cH)p3cp3nppp]266|200|MP's[/hv] 1NT was not forcing (6-9; can can have 3c♠ if 4-7) 2♣ was a limit+ inquiry and 2NT was max and GF, denying a 5+♥. (If North bids 3♦ iso 2NT that asks ♦ support for 3NT) (South denied a 5♣-5♠ limit+; he would have bid 2NT iso 2♣). Probably we would not have played 3NT at IMP's. If you agree with 1♠-1NT-2♣-2NT what is the best continuation after that?

I think that 4NT should be quantitative, but I think that at the table we would be both unsure if it is RKC or Quantitative.