After the vulnerable preempt, North needs South to have a very particular hand if slam is to make.  Yes, Diamond shortness and the A♠ will do the job very nicely.  Well, almost!  If Partner is 7=2=1=3 then 6♠ will indeed make, but if Partner is 7=3=1=2 then the A♥ will need to be onside.  Anyway, without special methods, North should settle for 4♠ and hope that Partner does not have the perfect hand.  However, those of a scientific bent may play asking bids in this situation.  One method is that bidding a new suit here asks for the preemptor’s holding in that suit.  So, North bids 4♦ here, to which the responses are:

-         4♥ (first step) is no first- or second-round control in Diamonds

-         4♠ (second step) is a singleton

-         5♣ (third step) is a first-round control (Ace or void)

4NT is missing from those step responses and that bid is reserved for Kx(x) in the key suit.

The chance to use that method won’t come up very often, but this deal is tailor-made for it.  North bids 4♦, South answers 4♥ and North signs off in 4♠, secure in the knowledge that slam is not a possibility.  Well, almost secure.  Couldn’t South have the A♠ and A♥?  Some pairs have rules about 1^st and 2^nd seat 3-level preempts, and not having an outside Ace might be one of them (or, if you don’t like that, then perhaps you could prohibit having two Aces).

In the balancing seat it’s customary to reduce the requirements for a 1NT overcall from 15-18, though there’s no consensus on that reduced range.  Some employ quite a wide range, such as 10-16, and have special methods to help them manage that range.   For example, opposite a balancing wide-range 1NT, one possible method is:

-         Systems are on

-         In response to Stayman the 1NT bidder makes the normal response if at the lower end of the range

-         If at the higher end of the range, the 1NT bidder responds 2NT, after which 3♣ is “re-Stayman”, asking again for a 4-card major.

Anyway, on the actual hand we would balance with 1NT if 16 were a part of our range, and if 16 is above our range we’d double and rebid 1NT.

It used to be that East’s 1♥ bid in this situation showed 5 Hearts, but that treatment is less popular nowadays, and it’s more common for 1♥ to be permissible with only 4 Hearts (but, if North had overcalled 1♥, then 1♠ does show a 5-card suit).

What would be your choice?  At this vulnerability, surely some action is required, and the question is whether to raise Diamonds or introduce the Spades.  It may seem strange to ignore a 6-card major, but our suggestion is to make a preemptive raise to 3♦.  Perhaps a Spade fit will be lost, but the chances are that this is the opponent’s hand, and it’s a good idea to latch on to the known fit, just in case N-S have a profitable sacrifice.  The danger with bidding a preemptive 2♠ here is that (a) it might provoke an unfortunate lead from Partner, and (b) if the Diamond fit is not announced immediately, it may be lost forever.

North has an opening bid, of course, but what is the bid which best prepares her for the likely 1♠ response from South?

-         Open 1♣, and rebid 2♣? No, that rotten suit is not worth rebidding.

-         Open 1♣, and rebid 2♦? A little bit light for a reverse, don’t you think?

-         Open 1♣, and rebid 1NT? No, too strong for that.

-         Open 1♦, and rebid 2♣? That’s not perfect, either, as it distorts the relative lengths of the minor suits.  Nonetheless, it seems to be the least of evils.

South’s 2♥ was game-forcing, and North might have shown a good suit earlier by rebidding 3♠ instead of 2♠.  However, she reasonably decided to go slowly in order to find out more about Partner’s hand.  Next, South’s jump to 3NT shows some extras, as with a minimum No Trump hand she would have bid 2NT.  Is 4♣ Gerber here?  That’s a matter for partnership agreement, and much as we think that Gerber is an overused convention, it’s rather useful on this deal!

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that 4♣ is Gerber.  What are the responses?  Most common is the 0/1/2/3 approach, but here’s an interesting alternative (no doubt influenced by the 1430 responses to Roman Key Card Blackwood):

-         4♦ is 1 or 4 Aces

-         4♥ is 0 or 3 Aces

-         4♠ is 2 Aces and a minimum

-         4NT is 2 Aces and a maximum

Assuming that Partner shows 2 Aces (maximum or otherwise) then North can reasonably try 7NT.

Let’s assume that South’s 2♦ is forcing to game, and that North’s 2♠ rebid tends to show a 6-card suit (though it may occasionally be made out of convenience with only a 5-card suit).  Now, South’s 3♠ raise is more encouraging than a jump to 4♠.  So far, so good.  After 3♠, is North obliged to show that A♣ now, by making a cue-bid of 4♣?  Or can she decline to cue-bid if she really doesn’t like her hand?

Needless to say, there are different opinions and styles here, and let’s say that the N-S preference was for the cue-bid to be voluntary, and that here North could decline to cue-bid the A♣ if she had a poor hand.  Does North have such a poor hand?  No, we think not, it may be only 13 points, but none of that is wasted, and the QJT in Partner’s Diamonds is a fine holding indeed.  So, we would bid 4♣ here, showing a Club control and also a hand of which we are not utterly ashamed.

3♠ was forcing and more encouraging than 4♠.  North would have been permitted not to cue-bid 4♣ with a poor hand (some play the cue-bid as obligatory).  North’s 4♠ no doubt denied a Heart control, and 5♥ showed two Key Cards without the Q♠.  What next?

South is clearly going to slam, but which one?  As North has failed to cue-bid Hearts there is the danger that 6♠ might be derailed by an opening Heart lead through South’s King.  On the other hand, in 6NT, there is the danger that there will not be enough tricks.  South can count 6 Spades (probably), two Diamonds, and a Club, which comes to 9, with just 8 or 9 of North’s points accounted for.  Where are the rest of North’s points?  The K♣ would get the trick total up to 11, with the K♥ a possible 12^th.  Or something good in Diamonds would also get the job done.  On the assumption that North’s 4♣ cue-bid was not “obligatory” and showed a positive attitude, we’d bid 6NT here, partly to protect the K♥, and partly for the better No Trump score.

After South’s balancing Double, North is not quite good enough for 3♦, perhaps about a Queen light. As for South, what does her 2NT show?  Obviously, a hand that was too good to balance with 1NT, let’s assume that N-S were playing a wide range of 10-16 for that bid.  In the circumstances, perhaps 3NT is somewhat optimistic (but certainly worth a try at IMP’s), so at matchpoints we’d bid 3♦.

North’s 2NT was the Unusual No Trump, showing, in this case, Hearts and Diamonds, after which East must decide how to raise Spades.  What are your methods here?  Many partnerships play “Unusual vs Unusual”, utilizing the cue-bids in the two enemy suits to show different hand-types.  But different partnerships use the cue-bids in different ways, are you and Partner on the same wave-length?  Our own Unusual vs Unusual preference is “Lower for Lower”, primarily for its simplicity:

-         3♣ is a minimum hand with long Clubs

-         3♦ (the lower cue-bid) is a better hand with the lower of the two E-W suits (long Clubs)

-         3♥ (the higher cue-bid) is a better-than-minimum hand with the higher of the two E-W suits (Spade support)

-         3♠ is a minimum hand with Spade support.

-         Pass is none of the above.

Based on that, East has a 3♠ bid, we would say … Spade support but not enough extras for a 3♥ cue-bid.

North’s hand is worth a game invitation and the common style is for 3♠ here to be preemptive and for 2NT to be an asking bid of some sort.  There are numerous different methods in vogue, here’s a set of responses to 2NT that we like (follow the link for more on this treatment):

-         3♣ shows a 5-card suit (any hand-strength)

-         3♦ is a 6-card suit and a minimum hand

-         3♥ is a 6-card suit and a medium hand

-         3♠ is a 6-card suit and a maximum hand.

Using this method we’d only go to game if Partner responded 3♠ (to our 2NT).

West’s 2♣ was an Inverted Raise, showing at least game-invitational values and no 4-card major.  2♣ is forcing for one round, but now that North has doubled, would it be a good idea for East to pass here, showing a weak hand.  We don’t think so, better to bid 3♣ here, showing extra Club length and making it more difficult for the opponents to compete.

North’s 2♠ was preemptive, of course, and South can surely compete to at least 3♠.  Suppose that South does indeed raise to 3♠ and that West now bids 4♥.  Does South expect to beat 4♥?  Probably not.  Assuming that North can be relied upon not to preempt with side-suit values, it looks as if N-S do not have 4 tricks on defense.  Yes, if South bids 3♠ and then 4♠ she will have missed the boat.  Surely it is better to bid 4♠ directly, putting West to the test.

On the actual layout, a direct raise to 4♠ is likely to work very well indeed.  West, with a promising 5-5 hand, is likely to guess wrong by bidding 5♥, which is down one.  But if South feebly bids 3♠ initially, West can show his extras by bidding 4♥, and East will be in a position to later double 4♠.