[VixTD]

I'd like to offer this hand as an example of our county teams-of-eight's habitual poor form, and in the spirit of constructive criticism rather than apportioning blame, but I've no doubt it will attract some of that as well. We lost 50 IMPs on the board when both our opponents bid a slam, and both of our team stopped in game. Here's our auction:

---

We were playing the popular (not with me) Benjamin Acol, weak NT, four-card majors.

2♣ was artificial and forcing for one round. (I'm not keen on this either, but it's standard Acol, not yet superseded by fourth suit game forcing.) Replies of 2NT, 2♦ or 2♥ could be passed, but any other continuation is forcing to game. East could have bid 3♦, I suppose, but he'd already shown five diamonds, so a waiting bid of 3♣ felt less misleading. With no suit agreed, 4NT was a natural slam invitation. East felt he'd already shown a better than minimum hand, and didn't have that much more in reserve.

[Zelandakh]

I will constructively suggest West grow a pair and not make a simple invite when holding the nuts.

[jogs]

I hate 4 card majors. Makes it hard to find slams. But that doesn't apply to this board.

Let's remove the ♠Q from the West hand.

♠ 532 ♥ AKQJ2 ♦ K6 ♣ A43

--------1♦
1♥ - 1♠
2♣ - 3♣

Doesn't matter if 2♣ is forcing for one round or game force.
Is 3♣ completing the pattern? 4=1=5=3
3♦ would tell pard about the diamond king.
3♠ would be spade control.

Getting to six should be easy. Seven, not so easy.

[rmnka447]

I agree with Zelandakh.

Responder is holding a 19 HCP hand. But if you consider the auction through 3 ♣, all those points are working. ♠ Qxx and ♦ Kx are more valuable now partner has bid those suits. The ♥ suit will also likely provide 5 tricks.

If I read OP bidding comments correctly, the 3 ♣ bid indicates a hand that would accept a game invitation opposite an invitational hand. In that case, inviting slam is exceptionally timid.

So after 3 ♣, responder must at least make a forcing bid or bid slam directly.

[neilkaz]

West holds that hand and hears his PD open and then bid another suit and had fitting honors in both and doesn't drive to slam?

[WesleyC]

I looks to me like the partnership was confused about whether 3C showed extra values.

West must have assumed it didn't show anything extra for the conservative 4NT bid.

East must have assumed he's already showed significant extras to pass with such prime values.

[kenrexford]

Strangely, I suspect that the core misunderstanding may be earlier in the auction. The trouble bid might be 1S.

The style is a weak notrump opening. Typically, then, Opener doesn't bid 1S with the balanced 15. Instead, 1NT to put the points on the table. 1S, then, already shows an unbalanced hand. If so, then at the 3C call, Opener has extras, because 2D, or perhaps 2NT, would show 4153 type, minimum.

If West thinks 1S just showed spades, and might be balanced, then 3C was "needed" to complete pattern. West missed that this is redundant, and hence missed the inference.

If, inztead, the style is as West necessarily must have assumed, then the partnership needs a more artificial unwind after 2C. Typically, 2D minimum and non-committal as to shape. But, even that would make 3C extrss.

The only scheme where 3C shows no extras is an insane requirement for 2D showing length in diamonds immediately at the cost of an intelligent way to handle the very likely this pattern, in which case the agreement is dumb.

If there is no agreement, get one.

[Cyberyeti]

Quote

East could have bid 3♦, I suppose, but he'd already shown five diamonds, so a waiting bid of 3♣ felt less misleading.

Had he ? couldn't he be looking at AKxx, x, AQxx, xxxx or similar ?

We had a potentially bigger disaster but fortunately it was 4 scores added then IMPed rather than cross IMPed where given the chance to sit partner's ToX of 1♥ with 6 hearts and 6 clubs, different decisions were taken leading to something like -1370, -1370, -560, -360 at the 4 tables. In the plus column we've had 6♥= twice for +1430 with opps taking the finesse for the Q the other way at both tables for -100.

[Trump Echo]

I agree with Z