[gnasher]

1♣       - clubs or any 11-14 balanced
       1♦ - 4+ hearts
1♥       - exactly 3 hearts
       1♠ - natural F1
1NT       - 11-14 balanced without 4 spades
       3♣ - 4414, game-forcing
3NT       - to play
       4NT - slam invitation
5♣

After 4NT, partner's defined actions apart from pass and 6NT are:
6♣ = strong suggestion to play in clubs
5NT = choice of slams

What's 5♣? If you could supply an example, that would be even better.

[Cyberyeti]

If playing IMPs particularly, maybe a 3334/2344 minimum with one diamond stop that feels more comfortable in clubs now it knows you have the values to make 5♣, but preferred 3N before as 11 tricks felt a long way away before you showed the extras so he thought he'd try for 9 in NT.

[whereagles]

I'd say something like

- min 11-12.
- shape 2344 or 2335 (with 3334 would probably pass 4NT I suppose).
- ♦KQx or KJx.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2014-September-22, 01:06, said:

1♣       - clubs or and 11-14 balanced
       1♦ - 4+ hearts
1♥       - exactly 3 hearts
       1♠ - natural F1
1NT       - 11-14 balanced without 4 spades
       3♣ - 4414, game-forcing
3NT       - to play
       4NT - slam invitation
5♣
After 4NT, partner's defined actions apart from pass and 6NT are:
6♣ = strong suggestion to play in clubs
5NT = choice of slams
What's 5♣? If you could supply an example, that would be even better.

In the context of gnasher's other agreements, a possible natural meaning is: poor controls and poor diamonds, suggesting a contract of 5♣ (or 6♣ at a push). For example ♠ x x ♥ K Q x ♦ J T 9 x ♣ K Q J .

[whereagles]

12 cards there, nige1. prob you mean a x club.

[jallerton]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-September-22, 01:24, said:

If playing IMPs particularly, maybe a 3334/2344 minimum with one diamond stop that feels more comfortable in clubs now it knows you have the values to make 5♣, but preferred 3N before as 11 tricks felt a long way away before you showed the extras so he thought he'd try for 9 in NT.

I agree with this. Partner could have a hand with diamond wastage (say ♦KQx(x)) on which he judges 3NT to be the best chance of making game opposite a 4414 13-count, but that 5♣ will be a safer game than 4NT opposite a 4414 19-count. Even if you don't agree with partner's assessment of the two situations, I think it's clear that 5♣ should be a selection of the final contract. Responder has described his hand precisely so Opener should be selecting the final contract.

[mikeh]

I agree with cyber as well. I would like to know whether partner could be 4=4 minors. Over here, being the left-hand side of the NA continent (looked at in the normal fashion) one opens such hands 1♦, tho use of transfers does militate in favour of 1♣.

If he would have opened 1♦ with 4-4, then I think there is a distinct possibility that he has chunkier diamonds than might be seen as 'a single stop'. KQx, for example, is slightly more than 1.5 stops, since dummy may hold the stiff J and/or the Ace is onside and/or RHO has no entry. Still, with 2=3=3=5, with ruffing values in spades, opener may well prefer 5♣ to 4N even with chunkier diamonds.

[PhilKing]

whereagles, on 2014-September-22, 07:47, said:

12 cards there, nige1. prob you mean a x club.

Nigel's example of ♠ x x ♥ K Q x ♦ J T 9 x ♣ K Q J x is worth a 2 out of 10, since slam is probably cold unless trumps are 5-0 (and may make when they are).

Never forget to do a couple of simple hand constructions before deciding whether or not to bid a slam. The real hand for this auction is about a trick worse.

[PhantomSac]

jallerton, on 2014-September-22, 15:34, said:

Even if you don't agree with partner's assessment of the two situations, I think it's clear that 5♣ should be a selection of the final contract. Responder has described his hand precisely so Opener should be selecting the final contract.

I agree with this. I would never bid 3N then 5C, for example the construction of xx KQx JT9x KQJx bidding 3N over 3C seems ridiculous to me, but I don't see how partner can intend 5C as anything as attempting to play there.

[PhantomSac]

PhilKing, on 2014-September-22, 17:32, said:

Nigel's example of ♠ x x ♥ K Q x ♦ J T 9 x ♣ K Q J x is worth a 2 out of 10, since slam is probably cold unless trumps are 5-0 (and may make when they are).

Never forget to do a couple of simple hand constructions before deciding whether or not to bid a slam. The real hand for this auction is about a trick worse.

Tru dat. QJ Jxx Axxx QJTx? opposite Axxx AKxx x AKxx 4N is not great and there is a lot of work to do to make 6C on the expected trump lead. And partners hand was so bad he did not want to encourage us with 3D over 3C?

[Fluffy]

it can also be an encouraging move but with bad clubs, ♠Qx ♥Kxx ♦AKxx ♣Jxxx. For me a 5m bid over a quantitative is encouraging, although this one doesn't quite look like I prefer to stick with "standard" meanings, even when highly unlikely.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on 2014-September-22, 16:39, said:

I would like to know whether partner could be 4=4 minors.

1♣ includes all 11-14 balanced hands (unless it has a five-card major).

[gszes]

Fluffy, on 2014-September-23, 00:52, said:

it can also be an encouraging move but with bad clubs, ♠Qx ♥Kxx ♦AKxx ♣Jxxx. For me a 5m bid over a quantitative is encouraging, although this one doesn't quite look like I prefer to stick with "standard" meanings, even when highly unlikely.

The entire concept of encouraging seems to be too fine a line since p is asking you to essentially pick
a slam with the appropriate encouraging hand. What is the purpose of 5c and where can p go if they hate
the poor trumps idea (5n?) which is probably too high if club losers are unavoidable.

The Cyberyeti Jallerton MikeH choice of contract seems much more likely to meet with success