[ASkolnick]

You hold:

x
J
ATxxx
AKJxxx

Opponents silent throughout:


1♦* - 2♣ *Playing Precision, can be as few as 0 diamonds.
2♥ - 3♦
3♠ - 4♦
4♥ - 5♣
5♦ - ????

Neapolitan style cue-bidding (Kings or Aces below game)

Your call

[whereagles]

huh? Let me get this straight. You bid 2♥ over pard's natural 2♣. And then bid 3♠ over 3♦?

How on earth you expect us, or pard, or anyone else to be able to say something sensible about the bidding?

[hanp]

You posted the companion hand so it is no longer interesting.

I would have bid keycards instead, we have controls in all suits and we want to be in slam if partner has 2 keycards. If partner shows 3 (not 0 I hope!) I will ask for the queen.

[ASkolnick]

The You was supposed to be by the 2nd hand, not the 1st.

[helene_t]

p might have bid slam if he had two keycards, so I pass. I suppose Han is right that asking for keycards would have been better.

[Apollo81]

You shouldn't post the companion hand as well at the same time if you want unbiased responses.

I'll say what I said in that thread -- partner has cuebid twice when he could have bid notrump, therefore he has a good hand. That makes this hand worth RKC over 4♥, without a doubt (I actually would have bid RKC over 3♠)

[mikeh]

The problem is not so much that we can deduce that this is the companion to the Axxx AQxx QJxx x but that you don't give us, in either post, any guidance as to the meaning of the bidding.

The sequence of 1♦ 2♣ ? is a particularly difficult area even in SA where at least we know that 1♦ shows at least 3 (some play, 4).

Thus, at the table I assume that we know quite a bit about what we have shown. I assumed, in the other post, that the bid of 2♥ promised some diamond length, since I assumed that balanced hands would rebid notrump, allowing responder to reverse into a possible 4-4 major fit, but this assumption is clearly not automatic and may be in error.

I guessed to bid slam in the other thread, before learning of this one's existence but had expressed concern that we didn't know enough about the methods in use to be comfortable that I was drawing accurate inferences.

So, in future, provide better footnotes