firmit Posted December 26, 2007 Report Share Posted December 26, 2007 Is this not textbook KQJxxK10AxKQxx 1♠-2♥-3♣? Partner suggested strongly that I should've bid 3NT. Why not search for a minor suit slam? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_s Posted December 26, 2007 Report Share Posted December 26, 2007 I agree. You are too strong for 3NT. Partner is still unlimited and slam is possible in any strain but diamonds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted December 26, 2007 Report Share Posted December 26, 2007 3C. Shows your shape and your strength. Depending on your style 3NT may be madeon an ace less. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted December 26, 2007 Report Share Posted December 26, 2007 I have no idea if it's too strong or not, but don't you want partner to declare 3NT if he has Qx(x) of diamonds? Switch your red suits and I'd be a lot more tempted to blast to 3NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted December 26, 2007 Report Share Posted December 26, 2007 If we are playing 2/1 GF, I would bid 2N. On just about any auction this seems to work out better than starting with 3♣. I am not worried about right-siding game contracts, my concern is to get both a slam invitation across and leave room to find the right strain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted December 26, 2007 Report Share Posted December 26, 2007 I prefer 2NT to 3C, but I have no huge problem with 3C. 3C is better for finding 6C if it is on, but 2NT and a later strong bid will describe this hand pretty well (18-19 bal). 2NT will also let partner know I have a doubleton heart. 3NT is a horrible bid; not only does it preempt the auction, it doesn't even describe the hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firmit Posted December 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 26, 2007 Continuation:1♠-2♥-3♣-3NT- 4NT! is 4NT quantitative in this position? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted December 26, 2007 Report Share Posted December 26, 2007 Continuation:1♠-2♥-3♣-3NT- 4NT! is 4NT quantitative in this position? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted December 26, 2007 Report Share Posted December 26, 2007 Continuation:1♠-2♥-3♣-3NT- 4NT! is 4NT quantitative in this position? Sure, what else? Although quantitative doesnot make a lot of sense, butso does ace asking. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts