Everybody has spades!

[MFA]

Just as inquiry, I would be worried that I wouldn't get my hand type across after 3♠. 3♠ has to be bid on a lot of different hands, it seems, some of which with only mediocre fit for clubs.

 

(phil)

That leaves 3♠ and 4♠. Obviously they are both some form of cuebid supporting clubs. I think 3♠ is plenty. Over 4♠, how is pard supposed to know that void, Kxxx, Qxx, AJxxxx sucks, but void, xxxx, KQx AJxxxx is the subnuts

 

We have to be realistic, I think. If I could show a slam try with a huge fit and a fistful of small spades, I would be very happy. I don't expect to do better in any other bidding sequence.

(Partner will sign off with both of your hands, I suppose, which is not so terrible. 6♣ is likely down on a trump lead on the latter.)

My only (and big) concern is that partner might not interpret 4♠ as intended. Afterall, I don't recall making one single Bluhmer bid in real-life bridge. But finally, here's a chance B).

 

Partner is not assured in his assessment that 3♠ is a Bluhmer, then he may assume an exposing bid.  What would Responder bid, for instance, with values and AQ10xxx in spades?

I'd try a double. Six tricks are easier than ten, especially when it's the same trump suit in each case.

Agree, double of 2♠ is penalty, so one starts with that, if he wants to play in 4♠ eventually.

[mr1303]

My inclination was to put 5C on the table. Admittedly, the meaning of 3 or 4S was not clear to me, and as a result I would not like to make a bid that I wasn't clear about the meaning.

 

Partner may give me 6 with his hand.