[JeffMorrow]

We are vulnerable against non-vulnerable. I am dealer, and we play a fairly standard 2/1 gf.

My hand

♠Qxx
♥KJ9xxx
♦AKx
♣J

The bidding went 1H, (P), 1S, (P), 2H technically promising 6+, (P), 3H, (P)

At this point, I thought I had two options, 4H closing out the auction or 3S to see whether the secondary fit in spades improved partner’s hand enough for her to explore slam. I chose 3S, for which I may have been too weak. (I guess pass and 4D were also options, but honestly, neither went through my mind at the time.)

In any case, during our usual post-tournament autopsy, my partner was unhappy with my 3S bid. Her understanding is that any change of suit bid after agreeing on trump shows a control in the bid suit. That is certainly unambiguous. My understanding is that a change of suit after agreeing on trump is encouraging and shows a useful feature, which MAY be a control. Which if either of those understandings is standard? Or is this one of those issues where a partnership must agree on their own understanding? If the latter, is it alertable?

Despite our different understandings, she bid 4H, and we made +1. So this was not a disaster this time, but obviously it is not good to have different understandings when you know you have a fit.

[jillybean]

---

for me, 1♥ 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ is not gf. Partner has not bid strongly and is unlikely to have a hand that will want to explore slam after I show 3 card spade support.
Therefore, 3♠ suggests a choice of games?

A change of suit after trump are agreed is initially a game try or probe for nt

[mw64ahw]

For me 3♠ is a 1st/2nd round control bid or non-serious if you swap 3♠ & 3N.
I'm not bidding 3♠ here with the two keycards and 6.5 mod. losers; just bid 4♥