[pescetom]

I concede that in this hand upgrading to 1NT would be pushing things, although GiB needs to be pushed.
But can that explain what happened later?
I'm fine with Stayman rather than a clubs transfer, this hand belongs in NT unless partner has hearts.
I can live with 3♣ although I would prefer 3NT.
Over 4♠ I can live with either Pass or Double, but what on earth is 5♣ about?

[smerriman]

I wouldn't have dreamt of bidding 3NT with a void in spades, and would have bid the same way as North.

[msheald]

With all due respect, I disagree.

With all the high cards in clubs, in is very likely partner has stop in spades given his NT opener. While nothing is guaranteed, and only 5000 simulations would show which is the better bid, IMO 3 NT is much easier to make than 5 clubs. I try to avoid minor games. At my intermediate level, ops seem to have less tolerance for NT games, and when I bid them and they are in a minor game, particularly in this type of hand, I get high boards much more frequently than not. Best regards.

Mike

[msheald]

Also, with 4 piddling hearts, I might avoid Stayman. While a heart game would be great if partner had something like AKxx, in my experience, partner tends to have only middling hearts, like Kxxx. 3NT makes in that case while 4 hearts does not.

And, without Stayman to give ops information (unless robots game with double dummy in which case robots already know distro!) 3NT is often better. Still, only 5000 sims would show which is the better bid.

Given me better hearts as responder, and I'm all for Stayman. With this hand - meh! Best regards.

Mike

[smerriman]

msheald, on 2025-July-21, 05:48, said:

With all due respect, I disagree.

With all the high cards in clubs, in is very likely partner has stop in spades given his NT opener. While nothing is guaranteed, and only 5000 simulations would show which is the better bid, IMO 3 NT is much easier to make than 5 clubs.

I don't understand your post at all. If you're disagreeing with the 3♣ bid, then if partner has a spade stopper, then he bids 3NT over 3♣ - WTP? What has 3NT vs 5♣ got to do with anything?

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2025-July-20, 15:42, said:

I wouldn't have dreamt of bidding 3NT with a void in spades, and would have bid the same way as North.

I assume you mean that as North with a void in spades you would not have dreamt that partner who opened 1NT could make 3NT opposite your hand and knowing your clubs and strength.
In which case I respectfully but strongly disagree.

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2025-July-21, 14:53, said:

I assume you mean that as North with a void in spades you would not have dreamt that partner who opened 1NT could make 3NT opposite your hand and knowing your clubs and strength.
In which case I respectfully but strongly disagree.

No, I mean that if I bid 3NT, partner will pass without a spade stopper assuming I have one for my bid, and I have no idea why I'd want to be in that contract. Are you bidding as a pure psych, hoping to trick the opponents into leading something else, or for you is it some kind of lebensohl style denying a spade stopper? Never seen this as responder though.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2025-July-21, 15:07, said:

No, I mean that if I bid 3NT, partner will pass without a spade stopper assuming I have one for my bid, and I have no idea why I'd want to be in that contract. Are you bidding as a pure psych, hoping to trick the opponents into leading something else, or for you is it some kind of lebensohl style denying a spade stopper? Never seen this as responder though.

I completely miss your logic. I bid 3NT speculatively (but nowhere near a psyche) in the hope that it will make and if not do better than let the opponents play spades. Partner says he has twice rebiddable clubs in what must be a 6-3 fit and I have Aces in the other three suits.

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2025-July-21, 15:23, said:

Partner says he has twice rebiddable clubs

You're mixing up the seats. Your opening post says that you would prefer GIB to bid 3NT instead of 3♣:

---

To me this is a psych of a stopper, and not something I'd have considered - I can't see the upside, and would have bid 3♣ like GIB, hoping South had the stopper to bid 3NT themselves (as you did).

[HardVector]

I have a general rule concerning this particular situation. It is, 'When in doubt, bid 6'. (Feel free to look at my profile to note that is my motto) What this means, is that if you think that 3n is the superior game contract, if partner insists on playing in 5m, bid 6. This works in match points because going down in a slam that doesn't make will score about as well a 5m making on the nose vs 3n making 4 (the normal result). Now, if you are playing IMPs, then this is modified because you are not as concerned with optimizing the score. You didn't state the scoring method you were using here, however. Playing IMPs, you are not as worried about playing 5m as in MPs.

If you are ticked off with a partner who consistently chooses 5m vs 3n, then stop playing with that partner (i.e. stop playing with bots).

[smerriman]

HardVector, on 2025-July-21, 20:37, said:

What this means, is that if you think that 3n is the superior game contract, if partner insists on playing in 5m, bid 6.

OK, I'm clearly losing the plot here since you and msheald are both talking about 3NT vs 5♣. The opponents have bid 4♠; 3NT is not an option. Are you suggesting a natural 4NT, or are we looking at different hands :/

[Huibertus]

Ending up in 3NT with AKQJXX in any suit is under rated. I'm curious if it would have been passed had there not been a 4♠ bid.

However I DON'T like stayman on this hand at all. IMHO this hand does have slam potential in ♣ and bidding 4♥ could be the right thing, but you HAVE to help partner assess his hand in case he has a ♣ fit. So the only way to achieve both of this is to bid 2NT ♣ transfer, 3♣ - 3♠ splinter.

Now that the bot has not done this, I DO think I understand why it bids 5♣. I think it simply assesses 4♠ may make or may not be down enough to compensate for your game. Not sure this is the RIGHT assessment, but I think this is what is happening.