[barsikb]

Dealer: South

1♥(S)-2♠(W)-?

---

[wyman]

I consider the hand enough to force game, and I choose 3C. I will bid 3N next, if possible.

[barsikb]

Thank you, wyman

After 3C if opener has

---

would 3S be a good bid (asking partner to bid 3NT if he has S stopper)?

[Zelandakh]

 barsikb, on 2013-February-18, 09:36, said:

After 3C
would 3S be a good bid (asking partner to bid 3NT if he has S stopper)?

I think this hand is good enough opposite 3♣ to look for slam, so prefer 4♣ to 3♠. +1 to wyman for part 1.

[barsikb]

Zelandakh, what is next then? Is 3C promising 5-card suit?

And anyway if opener bid 3S would partner have to take it for Western Cuebid?

[Zelandakh]

Yes, 3♣ promises 5+ clubs. And 3♠ would indeed be asking for a stopper. What comes next after 4♣ is a little awkward because there are so many different ways of handling slam auctions with 4 level minor suit agreement. However, assuming that your agreement would be Roman control bids, it might continue 4♦; 4♥ - 4♠; 4NT - 5♣; 6♣. It is also possible that North will take a pessimistic view and simply bid 5♣ over 4♣. I certainly would not criticise an N/B partnership for not finding the slam.

[barsikb]

Zelandakh: "Yes, 3♣ promises 5+ clubs" because it's 3-Level?

"Roman control bids, it might continue 4♦; 4♥ - 4♠; 4NT - 5♣; 6♣. "
Could you please let me know the meaning of each bid?

[Zelandakh]

Sorry, 4♦, 4♥ and 4♠ are meant here as control-showing bids, each promising a king, ace, singleton or void in the suit bid. 4NT is RKCB and 5♣ is 1 or 4 key cards. 3♣ promises 5+ because with only 4 clubs we would prefer one of Double, 3♠ or some number of NTs. Responder introducing a new suit over an overcall like this tends to be 5+ cards, even at the 2 level, although there are a couple of exceptions. At the 3 level it is always 5+.

[barsikb]

Thank you, Zelandakh. This was super-fast and clear

Controls are not divided into 1st round controls first and 2nd round controls later?

[Zelandakh]

You can play control-showing bids in that way but experience has shown that the method treating 1st and second round controls equally works better in practise. The point being that we are first and foremost interested in finding out if we are missing a cashing ace-king in a side suit. It is worth pointing out again I think that not everyone plays the same way in these auctions. For one, I prefer not to use control-showing bids here since the space is so limited. But I would not recommend that method in N/B, since it involves a fair bit of artificiality.