[bluenikki]

I held in third seat at matchpoints

Axx
Axx
AKT9x
QJ

The bidding went 1♠ - 2♦ ; 2NT. I bid 3♠, believing it showed slam interest.

Partner bid 4♠. I lacked the courage to bid 5♥. I passed, the wrong decision.

Partner had

KQJxx
xxx
Qx
Axx

Partner believes I should have bid 4NT over 4♠, an action I find repulsive.

Is she supposed to bid a frivolous 4♣ over 3♠? Otherwise, what are we supposed to do?

If it matters, we do not play sound openings.

[steve2005]

Playing Serious 3NT partner has an easy 4♣ cuebid

Even not playing serious partner has a 6 loser hand and should still cuebid

[DavidKok]

In my opinion both of you misbid, though not by equal amounts.

On the start 1♠-2♦; 2NT, opener has already show the 5♠332 - assuming the 2NT bid is natural and shows the shape. What's more, 12-14 is assumed until proven otherwise. With 15-17, open 1NT. With 18-19, continue over a possible signoff by partner knowing we have a combined 30+. Therefore, after your 3♠ rebid, partner had an absolute maximum - 14 HCP, two key cards and the queen, even the ♦Q is working. On this start this hand is the biggest maximum you can hold, and the suggestion of bidding only a nonserious 4♣ is underselling the hand a lot, let alone the actual signoff of 4♠.

Conversely, I think your hand is strong enough to keep bidding even opposite a minimum. You have a lot of controls and a likely source of tricks, I would brave the 5-level. Partner's 4♠ shows a minimum 5♠332 without many controls, but that last fact isn't too surprising as we hold so many. It might be right on balance to pass 4♠ if partner is both careful with hand evaluation and familiar with gadgets like (non)Serious 3NT, but even then I think I might bid one more time. I don't like 4NT over 4♠ - in my opinion 5♦ is a fine alternative - but I think pass is too conservative.

[Polixenes]

I think I would have passed the 4S with your hand, at least playing with my usual partners. I would have expected a bid of 4C from them if they held an A or K in that suit and so I would assume 2 club losers.

But I am no expert.

[bluenikki]

DavidKok, on 2025-September-01, 12:09, said:

the suggestion of bidding only a nonserious 4♣ is underselling the hand a lot, let alone the actual signoff of 4♠.

Do you mean opener has a better round-3 call than 4♣?

[bluenikki]

DavidKok, on 2025-September-01, 12:09, said:

the suggestion of bidding only a nonserious 4♣ is underselling the hand a lot

Do you mean opener has a better round-3 call than 4♣?

[DavidKok]

bluenikki, on 2025-September-02, 12:14, said:

Do you mean opener has a better round-3 call than 4♣?

If you play Serious 3NT, so that 4♣ is nonserious, I think 3NT is a better bid. Over partner's 4♦ we show the club control by bidding 4♥. Opener's hand is really strong within the range, and by agreement a nonserious cue is weaker.