[harikannan]

Playing IMPs, partner opens 1NT and we respond 2C with this hand:

64
Q874
AKT864
A

Partner responds 2S and we bid 3D. Partner bids 3NT. What factors should encourage or dissuade us in exploring a diamond slam. thanks.

[DavidKok]

I'd write a longer reply but don't have the time. Slams are all about hand evaluation, and discussing it with some depth takes a long time.
One easy point I'd like to make is that opposite a balanced hand we should upgrade aggressively with shape. After all, partner is guaranteed to have support or tolerance for our long suit(s). A simple starting point is the modified losing trick count - not because it's good, but because it's so simple to apply. Here we have 5.5 MLTC (2.5 each in the majors, 0.5 in diamonds, no adjustment). With the expected 7 for partners 1NT opening this puts us in slam territory (25 - 5.5 - 7 = 12.5 expected tricks). Having found that partner doesn't support hearts and is not enthusiastic about diamonds is cause for a downgrade, but I'd still make one more try. In practice we need partner to have some honours in hearts and either working clubs with major suit aces (so we can get some pitches) or not much club wastage for slam to be good. This isn't that likely, especially after the 3NT signoff, but I think both 4NT and 5♦ have enough play that I'm prepared to make one more attempt.

[mw64ahw]

harikannan, on 2025-May-09, 00:27, said:

Playing IMPs, partner opens 1NT and we respond 2C with this hand:

64
Q874
AKT864
A

Partner responds 2S and we bid 3D. Partner bids 3NT. What factors should encourage or dissuade us in exploring a diamond slam. thanks.

a) you have an 8, probably possibly 9-card fit unless opener is 3325
b) you have a mod. loser count of 5.5 which when combined with partners ~6.5 suggests a 19-5.5-6.5=7-level contract so the slam try should be safe.
c) you have 3 keycards in ♦/5 controls

[DavidKok]

 mw64ahw, on 2025-May-09, 01:16, said:

a) you have an 8, probably 9-card fit unless opener is 3325

I think you may have missed that opener responded 2♠ to our Stayman inquiry. 4=3=2=4 is the most likely hand shape for partner both a priori and given the auction, with our hand known. In some partnerships partner may even be 4=2=2=5 or 4=3=1=5, which would be inconvenient.
However, we may also find partner with 3- or even 4-card diamond support.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2025-May-09, 01:39, said:

I think you may have missed that opener responded 2♠ to our Stayman inquiry. 4=3=2=4 is the most likely hand shape for partner both a priori and given the auction, with our hand known. In some partnerships partner may even be 4=2=2=5 or 4=3=1=5, which would be inconvenient.
However, we may also find partner with 3- or even 4-card diamond support.

Yep - I did
I don't play the singleton in 1NT so will discount that

[mcphee]

Wheb using stayman and then showing a minor showsa hand that =generally has a short suit or they bid 3N. This allows the ope4ning hand to show if they like the minor. I do thgis bt bidding the nest suit up while not promissing a key card. Bpw you are able to find out where partner is short without passing 3NT. I got this toy from a 2 timne world champion and it is very good.

[mw64ahw]

mcphee, on 2025-May-09, 02:18, said:

Wheb using stayman and then showing a minor showsa hand that =generally has a short suit or they bid 3N. This allows the ope4ning hand to show if they like the minor. I do thgis bt bidding the nest suit up while not promissing a key card. Bpw you are able to find out where partner is short without passing 3NT. I got this toy from a 2 timne world champion and it is very good.

I guess this only works when 2♣ promises a 4-card Major?
1N - 2♣
2♠ - 3♦
3♥ 3+♣ <Shortage?> - 3♠ ♣

[Huibertus]

harikannan, on 2025-May-09, 00:27, said:

Playing IMPs, partner opens 1NT and we respond 2C with this hand:

64
Q874
AKT864
A

Partner responds 2S and we bid 3D. Partner bids 3NT. What factors should encourage or dissuade us in exploring a diamond slam. thanks.

The main factor should be Partner's lack of interest. Should he have a good hand for a ♦ contract game/slam he should support ♦ no matter what.
The problem with this hand is you haven't (couldn't) provide partner the full required information to evaluate his hand on. That is due to the lack of accuracy for stayman based NT systems. This might still be slam, but it's a guess, continuing might be good, it might also lead to 4NT/5♦ down.

You really should be able to distinguish a 4M/5m with interest from a 4M/6m with interest to help partner, but you can't. The stiff ♣ also doesn't help. Partner needs to be told his ♣ values are redundant, but you can't (partner holding ♦ Queen or ♣ queen makes a huge difference for instance). All in all I'd pass this hand, knowing it could be 6 ♦.

[Cyberyeti]

Club values might not be irrelevant, they could park losers.

Axxx
AJ
Qxx
Kxxx

The ♣K parks the losing spade, and one heart ruff is all that's required whether the finesse wins or loses

Axxx
Kx
Qxx
KQxx is similar

[mike777]

 harikannan, on 2025-May-09, 00:27, said:

Playing IMPs, partner opens 1NT and we respond 2C with this hand:

64
Q874
AKT864
A

Partner responds 2S and we bid 3D. Partner bids 3NT. What factors should encourage or dissuade us in exploring a diamond slam. thanks.

Close one but I Pass.
I don't promise a 4 card major.
Partner could have cuebid hearts or raised D.
Couple of other negative leaning possible hands.

[pescetom]

 mcphee, on 2025-May-09, 02:18, said:

Wheb using stayman and then showing a minor showsa hand that =generally has a short suit or they bid 3N. This allows the ope4ning hand to show if they like the minor. I do thgis bt bidding the nest suit up while not promissing a key card. Bpw you are able to find out where partner is short without passing 3NT. I got this toy from a 2 timne world champion and it is very good.

Please could you (or someone else) explain this more clearly?

[harikannan]

I read it as: "If one uses stayman and then shows a minor, one generally has a shortage; otherwise one would have bid 3NT. This allows the 1NT opener to show if he likes the minor. The opener show this by bidding the next higher suit, which does not promise a key card there. By this way, the opener is able to find out where the shortage is. I got this toy from a 2-time world champion and it works very well". Hope it helps.

[mike777]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-May-09, 04:42, said:

Club values might not be irrelevant, they could park losers.

Axxx
AJ
Qxx
Kxxx

The ♣K parks the losing spade, and one heart ruff is all that's required whether the finesse wins or loses

Axxx
Kx
Qxx
KQxx is similar

Partner pretty much denied those possible hands.

[Huibertus]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-May-09, 04:42, said:

Club values might not be irrelevant, they could park losers.

That is true of course. But the problem is you need to inform partner you have stiff Ace, so partner can re-evaluate his hand appropriately, seeing that ♣ QXX(X) is worthless, while KXX(X) provides a parking place. You simply can't get this message across. Even if you are able to tell him you have a ♣ splinter, does he now devalue ♣ KXX(X) while he should do the opposite?

[mikeh]

I do play the gadget mentioned by McPhee. 1N 2C 2S 3D 3H announces a diamond fit, otherwise says nothing about the hand. Since 3D is often a 5 cad suit, opener would tend not to show support with something like AQxx Kxx Jxx KQx….that hand screams 3N to me. Even some hands with Qxx would look more like 3N than 3D. Btw, in our methods (both regular partnerships) 2C promises a major while 2S denies 4H, so the 3H ‘I have a diamond fit’ is available.

Having said that, possession of such a good diamond suit….slam suitable opposite Qx and borderline suitable opposite xxx…makes it wrong, imo, to pass 3N.

We have options. To me, 4D demands cuebidding. If he bypasses 4H, then we play 4N….I’m not committing to 5D off two quick hearts and maybe 3….AKxx xxx QJx KQx.

Over 4H I bid 5C. Denies a spade control. Partner should be able to figure it out most of the time. I could have bid 4N over 3N with a slam invite 2452 hand…or 1=4=5=3. I pretty much have to have a 4=6 reds hand, with means, when I show the club card, he knows we have a pitch if he has the spade ace and club king. He should still have a ‘good hand’ in context since I’m merely (at this point) trying for slam.

So, with a hand that meshes well, he can bypass 5D over my 5C and we’ll play 6D. We may not make it but so what?

[harikannan]

 mikeh, on 2025-May-09, 12:14, said:

If he bypasses 4H, then we play 4N….I’m not committing to 5D off two quick hearts and maybe 3….AKxx xxx QJx KQx.

It is fascinating to listen to expert's thought process. Here, i am unable to understand why 4NT would not be rkcb. Can someone explain please.

[mikeh]

harikannan, on 2025-May-09, 21:05, said:

It is fascinating to listen to expert's thought process. Here, i am unable to understand why 4NT would not be rkcb. Can someone explain please.

It’s complicated. Sorry, but that’s the truth

Most beginners are taught, and continue this as they advance, that 4N is either quantitative….imagine 1N 4N….or keycard/ace asking.

As one develops one learns a multitude of uses, each context specific.

Thus in my main partnership, uses for 4N include (I may have overlooked a useage or two, being rare):

Keycard in spades. For the other suits we play kickback.

Quantitative

Forward going but non specific….say we’ve agreed on diamonds and partner just cuebid 4S. 4N would deny a club cue (either no club control or I’ve already cuebid clubs and don’t have a second club cue) but shows too much to sign off in 5D.

Two places to play. Imagine (4S) x (p) 4N. 4N is usually showing two places to play, asking the doubler to bid the lowest suit that he’d be ok playing if that was one of my suits. It can have other meanings, but that’s for another day…it’s rare

Substitute cuebid. Say we’re playing in hearts and using kickback. Say partner cuebid 4D and I can’t, for some reason, use keycard, or I think it’s best not to, but I want to cuebid spades. Kickback uses 4S as keycard, so we make 4N the spade cuebid.

Takeout. Imagine (4S) ? 4N is usually played as a strong two suiter.

A suggestion to play. Once our side has suggested 3N and pulled, seeking a slam, 4N is generally seen as a regressive move. Here’s an example. 2N 3H 3S 4D

3H is a transfer, accepted. 4 D shows ac2 suited hand, spades and diamonds. 4N would deny 3+ spades and a good diamond holding. Opener might be Ax KQ10x Qxx AKQx.


On the OP hand, there’s another wrinkle. One of our rules is that a player who has opened a strong 1 N (or a weak one for that matter) can never ask for keycards. That’s because it’s extremely rare for the notrump opener to know enough about the hand that he can accurately place the contract based solely upon how many keycards partner has. Meanwhile, it’s far more common for opener to want to slow the auction down via a regressive 4 N.

So in the auction I gave, where responder pulled 3N to 4D, we d not use 4H as kickback. In most slammish suctions agreeing diamonds, we do…but only by responder

Say it had gone 1N 2C 2S 3D 3H….3H says opener likes his hand for diamonds. Now, we would never keycard with Qxxx in hearts nor with Qx or worse in spades…we avoid keycard when it’s possible to be off a cashing AK in a suit in which we haven’t cuebid to show a control. But imagine I held Kx AQxx AKxxxx x. Now over 3H I’d bid 4H, keycard in diamonds.

Once we’ve gone kickback, we don’t have a way of asking for keycards. I know…many non experts think it’s almost a mortal sin not to ask for keycards. Ve bid many small and grand slams without using keycard…usually successfully😀

So since we only play 4N as keycard in spades, if our auction was 1N 2C 2S 3D 3N 4D 4H, I’d bid 5C and expect partner to bid 6D if he had a good hand in context. He’s far from forced to bid slam. We’re having a collaborative auction. But if he bid 4S over 4 D, I’d know he didn’t have either the Ace or King of hearts so I’d bid 4N. Since that's never keycard…..because I can’t possibly have spades…it’s to play.

I’ve tried to distill a very complex and often subtle topic into a manageable post. Hope it helps.

[harikannan]

Thanks Mikeh. I will read and re-read to understand as much as i can. Thanks to all others who have shared their thoughts.