Do you know your system and your standard agreements? by Frank Stewart

A: 4♣: A bid of three hearts would (as most pairs agree) be a "limit raise," inviting game. That action would be reasonable. Though this is a mighty good hand to settle for an invitation, no attractive option exists. Aggressive players might force to game with a "splinter" response of four clubs.

Your result so far:

A: 4♦: If partner wanted to play at four spades, he would have bid it. His four clubs is an ace-showing cue bid to invite slam. Cue-bid four diamonds. Even if he signs off at four spades, bid six spades or try again for slam by cue-bidding five hearts.

Your result so far:

A: 2♣: In modern systems, a jump-raise to three clubs is not forcing. It may be game-invitational or preemptive. But any system needs a forcing raise in opener's minor. Some pairs use "inverted" raises: A single raise is strong and forcing. Without such methods (which I do not necessarily favor), temporize with a response of one diamond.

Your result so far:

A: 4♥: Your 1NT was quite conservative; a bid of two clubs or an invitational jump to 2NT was possible. Partner's bidding promises a good hand. If he had a hand such as A K 4 3, Q 4 2, J 10 7 3, K 5, he would have no reason to disturb 1NT. Bid four hearts. He may hold A K 4 3, Q 4 2, A Q 7 3 2, 5.

Your result so far:

A: 2♣: A 3NT response would show a balanced 16 or 17 points. I wouldn't call that action a terrible mistake, but players avoid it because it uses up bidding space and can impede slam investigation. Here, either minor might be a playable trump suit. Respond two clubs. If partner has four cards in diamonds, he can bid two diamonds next.

Your result so far: