WesleyC

One simple treatment is to use 4♣ over any preemptive bid as an artificial slam try. This is most valuable (as a non jump) after a 3♥ or 3♠ opening given that you don't really have another slam-try available, but for consistency I also like using it after weak 2s. Over a weak 2, my preference is to use 2NT as a range-probe/shortage-ask and 4♣ to ask specifically about suit quality in the context of slam.

The fact that you're considering balancing into the opponents invitational, non-fit auction is proof that you should just open 3C in first seat!

I think "Preemptive" too wide a description for anyone to provide meaningful feedback. Meckstroth would have a huge amount more information than that about what hand types are consistent with a 3H bid.

Looks like an automatic double to me.

I agree with Ken that introducing a weak 5c suit on this hand looks counter productive given that responder never wants to play in a 5/3 heart fit and would prefer that opener hold short hearts! If opener is looking at a 'misfitting' minimum like: [KQJxx x Axxx Kxx], they will takes a conservative view because they expect to opposite wasted heart values. Even without complex agreements, I'd rather start with 2C. However on the actual layout, bidding 2H should work out fine. 1S - 2H 4C - 4D (last train). KeyCard etc. I think north splintering with 4C is important because it suggests 4 card trump support (rather than a single raise which will often be only 3 card support). Now responder needs to recognize that although they have weak trumps and some wastage in clubs, holding 2 Aces, Spade support and a diamond shortage, slam is definitely still in the picture so they should keep it alive with 4D (last train). [QJxxx AKxx Axx x] or similar gives slam excellent play and if opener has less they can always sign-off in 4H.

As manadude pointed out, the double then cuebid sequence is more of a 'catchall' for any strong hand without direction rather than showing a specific hand. Both of the hands in your initial post wouldn't qualify for me because, I would prefer to double and then just bid my suit naturally. The precise range of the cuebid advance varies a lot based on the context and level of the auction. For example in an auction like: (1C) X (P) 1H Where the 1H bid is wide ranging (0-10 HCP), it is normal to raise to 2H on any full strength t/o double with decent shape and 4H (perhaps 12-14 HCP). As a result the 2C cuebid doesn't need to be as strong, I'd play it as roughly 15+ HCP.

If you choose to force to game on this hand (which I agree with), not exploring for a diamonds along the way is surely a mistake. If partner has 4 or 5 diamonds and a small doubleton spade then diamonds will almost always be the best strain. And if partner does have ♠Qx (or ♠JT), you should still be able to end up in 4♠. The main feature of the hand that suggests diamonds might play well is the ♠AKxxx. If you made the hand have ♠KQT9x instead (and added another card outside) then i'd have more sympathy for choosing not to show diamonds.

I'll join the "3C is automatic" camp. On the auction, partner will usually hold a spade fragment (and hence very short hearts) so all of our values are well placed and game prospects are excellent. Opposite a minimum hand with some extra distribution such as: [KJx --- Axxxx KQxxx], and the opponents will probably need to lead a diamond to beat 6 clubs! Another point in favour of bidding that no-one has mentioned is that if we pass, the bidding isn't over. Unless partner has some serious values, the opponents will almost always have a profitable partscore in spades. If South is sitting on decent hand with a heart stack and no convenient way to enter the auction they could easily be making game. Even if 3c leads to a negative score, it might be turn out to be a very cheap 'advanced sacrifice'.

My style when playing a semi-forcing 1NT (and especially NV) is to bid 1NT on very weak hands with 3c support (4-6 HCP) which makes the 2S bid a little more constructive (7-10). Vulnerable, I'll pass more flat 4-5 counts, but still try and pinch it with 1NT sometimes. One principle that I use when dealing with big shapely hands like this (as opposed to a flat 11 count) is to narrow my invitation range, especially if inviting gets you to the 3 level. The logic is that, based on how well partner's hand meshes with ours, the number of tricks we can will vary more than usual. This increased variance means stopping at the 3 level is less valuable than usual, and it's better to either go conservative with 2S or aggressive and force to game. For example, I would happily force to game holding: [xxx x KJx AQxxxx]

I'd pass if partner was 1st seat but raise if partner was 2nd seat. These two auctions are quite different and most players underestimate just how much having an opponent pass in front of you changes the nature of a deal!

The North hand looks like an automatic 2S bid to me...

Do people really play 3C in this sequence as natural? Seems like a really handy agreement to invent after you're dealt a hand where you want to play in exactly 3C...

Bridge isn't a game of 'promises', especially in terms of HCP. At favourable vulnerability, the tactical advantage you gain by responding 1S on this hand is huge.

I've got plenty of sympathy for 3NT, but I think I would prefer to start with a double on the West hand. Partner won't ALWAYS jump to 4H and if they do, I'll pull to 4NT and hope they can show a second suit! I think a more typical hand for the actual auction is something like the hand helene posted: Kx-A-Kxx-AKQxxxx (or even a high card weaker) so I would be less optimistic about slam chances. Because we hold 5/5 in the reds and only ♣Jx this hand type is even more likely. In situations where partner is forced into bidding 3NT under pressure, many established partnerships use 4C as an 'asking bid'. I'm not sure of the best responding structure but 4D might show any minimum with a long suit, 4H/4S/4NT various strength balanced hands and 5x a more powerful single suiter. If you had that available it might be useful!

Tricky problem. Given we could easily not have a fit, prospects aren't great. On the other hand, there's a decent chance this auction won't be duplicated at other tables and defending 2S is unlikely to win many matchpoints, especially if the opponents have promised an 8c fit. So rather than take a huge position right away I'll start with a responsive double and postpone my problem for another round.

I can't see anything better than just drawing trumps, ♣A and then a club to the ♣J. That will get you 12 tricks if the clubs are ♣Qxx - ♣xxx (17.7%). If you were playing IMPs in 5♥, you'd be better to try ♣A, ♣K and then leading up to the ♣J which gives you an extra 5% chance of making 11 tricks (♣Qx offside). However given it's MPs and you're in what looks like the normal contract, you pretty much have to go all out for the maximum.

Given that you don't have much room below 5m, having 4NT available as a forward going slam try is valuable. My preferred agreements regarding pulling 3NT to a natural slam try 4m are: the partner who bid 3NT is allowed to bid 4NT, natural and NF. Any other bid is at least mildly forward going in the minor and commits our side to playing in the minor. 4m+1 (by either partner) would be kickback and 4NT would show either a control in the 4m+1 suit or a last-train style slam try depending on the context. This isn't an ideal method in this specific situation, but I like it as a general agreement. Usually it is the 3NT bidder (rather than their partner) who is best placed to suggest 4NT as a final contract. If responder wanted to invite slam and really wanted to play 4NT rather than 5m, they could invite with a quantitative 4NT themselves.

I've got a few years experience opening a natural 2C (11-14(15) HCP (5)6+C, *sometimes* 4M) in the context of a 10-12 1NT system. A lot of the marginal hands (e.g. super max 14-15 hands with extra shape, weak 5c club suits, hands with both minors, 4135 hands with a strong 4cM and weak clubs etc) get lumped into either 1C(16+*), 1D, 1M or 1NT as appropriate. As a result the 2C opening is fairly tight and low frequency so we've kept the system simple. Our philosophy when you do open 2C is to accept that you're going to miss some major suit games and focus on the upsides (preemption, lead direction and aggressive 3NT contracts). Although we did play 2NT as a puppet for a couple of years, we found it gave opponents a low risk entry into the auction in the direct seat and then ANOTHER chance in the pass-out seat without gaining significantly. The method I like is: 2D/2H = Transfers (5+M). Opener can super-reject with significantly extra shape and no tolerance. 2S = Range probe, with 2NT/3C responses. A subsequent 3D bid asks for a 4cM. 2NT = GF shortage/shape ask in clubs. 3C = Preemptive. 3D = GF diamonds. Not sure this was very helpful, but I thought I'd share in any case.

Especially in the minors I prefer to open 2C fairly conservatively. This means that East, holding 4 trumps, a singleton and a potential trick source is basically always forcing to slam. With such an amazing hand for diamonds, it feels right to focus on that with a direct raise (or a splinter raise) rather than introducing hearts. So East gets some blame. However having already pulled 3NT to 4D, East's 4NT is surely forcing. The most logical meaning is probably an ongoing slam try without a club control but using it as keycard might also be fine if you wanted to keep things simple. Even if it wasn't forcing, with solid diamonds and controls in every suit, why would West pass? So call it 50% East, 100% West!

If it looked likely that the auction was going to become competitive, I'd try 4C in order to involve partner in the 5 over 4 decision. But the way the auction occurred at the table, it looks clear to just raise to 4H.

Given that LHO has already shown shortness in hearts, doubling 4H for a lead seems like a really poor plan!

In my experience, the rules aren't enforced this way. You're not allowed to make a 'creative' bid in a situation where you think the 'normal' bid is suggested by the UI because if it works, you will be ruled against. UI rulings basically amount to "if pass is one of the logical alternatives then you must pass". I've never seen a player penalized for passing in a marginal situation where an expert player would surmise that the UI probably suggested taking an action.

rhm's method of 'subjective attitude signals' isn't wrong and it might even works better in some cases. However, it simply isn't the way that most people play attitude signals on the opening lead. I'm surprised you haven't picked this up from the signalling of your opponents?

Interesting ruling. One issue I have is that the wording of what constitutes a 'logical alternative' is fundamentally unfavorable to less experienced players. While a panel of top experts might *sometimes* agree unilaterally about the correct action, a panel of intermediate players hardly ever will. By definition the intermediate players all have gaps in their bridge understanding, and these gaps will appear in different areas. They will also be more prone to straight up blunders. As a result the intermediate poll is always going to generate more logical alternatives.

I'm not convinced that West's lead marks him with much extra diamond length. On one hand giving him the KQ and dividing the other diamonds evenly does suggest more diamonds, but if he does hold KQ to 6+ Diamonds, a side king and some shape he would often bid over 1S, so we have to discount some amount of those hands. Also if West does have long diamonds, your extra chance of ♥Kx (or KTx misdefence) also increases. And even if you did know he has longer diamonds, the average proportion of clubs and hearts between the two hands should still be pretty similar - you could test this theory with a simulation. This depends on your opponents but I suspect the chance of RHO making a lead directing double on King empty would be pretty close to zero in most Australian fields so I wouldn't read too much into that.