not so much fun

[jillybean]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sajhaqxdaqxxckqxx&s=skxxxhkxdxcajxxxx]133|200|Scoring: MP

(P) 2♣ (P) 3♣

(P) 3nt (P) 6♣[/hv]

 

What do you think of North's 3nt bid, is 4♣ better?

 

The 6♣ bid is open for comments...

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

4C is certainly better, 3C should

show pos. values and a 6 card suit,

and Axxxxx is certainly not enough.

 

6C is a practical bid, but one can also

bid 4C, holding 2 kings and a Ace, knowing

about at least a 6-2 fit, responder needs

to make another move.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[1eyedjack]

Interested to know what a 2NT opening bid would have shown.

 

But given that it started 2C I think that 2C-3C-4C is the right way to go.

[BillHiggin]

I think that responder will generally be better placed by NOT bidding 3♣ the first time. Two kings and an ace opposite a strong 2♣ opening suggest that slam is virtually a foregone conclusion. Strain is not so clear (yes we like clubs, but spades could be even better and hearts will work if partner has a strong hand with long hearts and no-trump is certainly worth considering at this form of scoring).

 

Considering the actual bids chosen, I would tend to suspect that this partnership is just not going to have the tools to bid the grand slam.

 

What do I think of the 6♣ bid. I think responder is very inexperienced and somewhat naive. This slam is likely to score well below average. The combined strength seems to be at least 33 HCP, and even beginners can bid 6N on that. Lacking the tools to investigate the grand in clubs, at least choose 6N.

[whereagles]

Mistakes both sides. 3♣ is positive, so North could have bid a straight 4NT followed by 5NT. South, after 3NT, could have bid 4♣ because he has way too much strength to play a mere 6.

[EricK]

3NT is only OK as long as you have the (IMO sensible) agreement that after a positive response to 2♣ the bidding can't stop in 3NT. But 4♣ is better still.

 

The 6♣ bid is silly IMO as 4♣ would be forcing and we don't know yet whether 7♣ is on so it makes sense to explore a little more.

 

That being said, opener could still have taken a shot at 7♣. it is hard (for me, at any rate) to think of a hand which could bid 6♣ where there is not at least a play for 7.

[HeartA]

3NT is only OK as long as you have the (IMO sensible) agreement that after a positive response to 2♣ the bidding can't stop in 3NT. But 4♣ is better still.

 

The 6♣ bid is silly IMO as 4♣ would be forcing and we don't know yet whether 7♣ is on so it makes sense to explore a little more.

 

That being said, opener could still have taken a shot at 7♣. it is hard (for me, at any rate) to think of a hand which could bid 6♣ where there is not at least a play for 7.

ditto.

[helene_t]

2NT-3♣

3NT(1)-4♦(2)

4♥(3)-4♠(4)

4NT(5)-6NT

 

1: No 4-card M

2: Slam try in clubs, optionally KC asking

3: Positive with 4 KCs

4: Asking for queen of clubs

5: Yes but no kings outside of clubs

 

This is a bit of a gamble since responder doesn't know about ♥Q but otherwise some other good thing may happen, or it will depend on a finese.

 

At IMPs, responder would probaly choose 6♣ for the added option of ruffing a spade for the 12th trick.

 

I cannot locate the doubleton spades and ♥Q playing Niemeier (Dutch Pubbet Stayman), so I won't reach 7. Doesn't matter we "never" bid 7 at MP.

[badderzboy]

Seems biddable to me without that many clever agreements

 

 

2NT -3C(puppet Stayman)-

3NT* no 4 or 5Card Major- 4C (forcing shows Cs asks for cue)

4D*(1/2nd ) -4H*(cue)

4S*(cue)-4NT*(RKCB)

5D(1/4)-5H*(Q ask)

6C*(Yes Q no o/s K)-7C (knows that partner 2/3 in majors can see AAAKQ and partner must have a major Q to have pts with no Ks)

 

Steve