partner opens and strong hand

[kgr]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=skxxhajtxxdxxckjx&s=saqthxdakqxcat9xx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

1♥-2♣

2♦-3♦

3NT-4NT

5♣-6♣

 

2♣=GF ♣ OR 3c♥ and limit+

2♦=12-14 with 5c♥ OR strong with ♦

3♦=reverse

3NT=12-14

 

Do you agree with 4NT quantitative or is South hand too strong?

[pooltuna]

quant is acceptable.

[PhantomSac]

1000 % agree with 4N quantitative, you can't GF with 19 and no source of tricks.

 

Dislike 3D a lot if it was avoidable, south should aim to bid 2N and see if partner can bid 3C (with 3 card support), or 3D with 4. South not only is positional with spades, but also wants to keep the auction lower and elicit some support.

 

I guess 3N is ok if you routinely bid 3D with 3145 type hands, but if you routinely bid 2N with that (as I think you should unless your system prohibits that somehow) then I think north should bid 4C over 3D.

 

5C-6C looks fine, perhaps north is good enough to just bid 6C but this can't be too far off the mark.

[kgr]

1000 % agree with 4N quantitative, you can't GF with 19 and no source of tricks.

 

Dislike 3D a lot if it was avoidable, south should aim to bid 2N and see if partner can bid 3C (with 3 card support), or 3D with 4. South not only is positional with spades, but also wants to keep the auction lower and elicit some support.

 

I guess 3N is ok if you routinely bid 3D with 3145 type hands, but if you routinely bid 2N with that (as I think you should unless your system prohibits that somehow) then I think north should bid 4C over 3D.

 

5C-6C looks fine, perhaps north is good enough to just bid 6C but this can't be too far off the mark.

1H-2C-2D-2NT would be NT hand with limit (11 pts) and not forcing.

In our system we don't have another option than bidding 3♦.

3♦ could even be 4-4 in the minors and a hand not suitable to bid 2NT or 3NT (no ♠ stop or too strong).

With 3145 hand I would not bid 3D if slam is unlikely and if 3NT is best played in my hand. I think I would bid 3D with eg: Ax=xx=Axxx=KQxx

...3NT is probably ok given our system. (and the comments given by you show the advantage of 2/1)

[PhantomSac]

Ok, fair enough if 3D is forced by your system then it is fine obv. 3N is also fine in that context of course.

 

I think you had a perfect auction in your system tbh, well bid.

[jdonn]

Yes it's only the system I would argue with here not the judgment, if I understand it right.

[kgr]

[hv=n=sqxxhkjxxxdkxcaxx&s=sajhaxdaqxxckjtxx]133|200|[/hv]

These were the actual hands according to my partner.

Should the bidding be different (my partner didn't like 4NT quantitative)?

[PhantomSac]

[hv=n=sqxxhkjxxxdkxcaxx&s=sajhaxdaqxxckjtxx]133|200|[/hv]

These were the actual hands according to my partner.

Should the bidding be different (my partner didn't like 4NT quantitative)?

6C also looks fine on these set of hands on the same auction. Don't really see what the problem is.

 

I mean maybe if you wanted to be more scientific you could bid 4S with your first hand instead of 4N, but that just seems like asking them to find a killing heart lead if you land in 6N or something.

[kenrexford]

I love the auction. All of it. I mean, the systemic approach is somewhat strange, but it intuitively feels like this is probably a fairly good system, because the specific articulation of what bids mean seems very theory-savvy.

 

Of course, my endorsement of what little I see may cause second thoughts.