MinorKid Posted April 6, 2010 Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 [hv=d=e&v=b&s=skxhqxdakqxxxcatx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[3♠] ?[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted April 6, 2010 Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 3NT, not close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted April 6, 2010 Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 3NT, not close. Yep. The general rule over preempts is to assume partner has 7 points and bid accordingly, so in this case you have enough for 3N easily with a good source of tricks, stopper, and lots of HCP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted April 6, 2010 Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 Agree 3NT. Passing with this good a hand can't possibly be right, and while it's true that you can't make 3NT if partner has no help for you, you're not going to make 4♦ then either. Double might work but will lead to a lot of ridiculous 4♥ contracts (on 4-2 fits even) when you are cold for 3NT. I think you might get more interesting answers if the spades were two small though. :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 6, 2010 Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 It's not unanimous already??? :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohitz Posted April 6, 2010 Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 3NT looks clear. At the risk of hijacking the thread, what methods do people play over a 3NT overcall? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted April 6, 2010 Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 3NT looks clear. At the risk of hijacking the thread, what methods do people play over a 3NT overcall? 4♣ stayman, no transfers. Agree with others about unanimous 3NT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 6, 2010 Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 I play 4♣ an ask about overcallers hand with artificial responses, 4♦/4♥ transfers. I think in theory 4♠ should be another artificial ask (maybe a stronger one) but I've never bothered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted April 6, 2010 Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 what responses jdonn? i've yet to see a really good structure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 6, 2010 Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 I have nothing that good either! I would play something like 4♦: Solid suit, 4♥ asks which with 2-under xfer answers and something fancy should be played over that, 4NT over 4♦ to play although since values have now been shown it can be overruled with extras.4♥: "Stretch" (meaning "I was just kidding please don't hate me", ie Kxx x Axx AQJxxx)4♠+: Balanced ranges. Thinking outloud, maybe this would be better:4♦/4♥/4♠: Stayman responses with balanced hands up to something like 20.4NT: Stretch5♣+: Bidding a solid suit Told you I have nothing good. Edit: That should be transfer stayman responses with 4♠ denying a major so the balanced hand gets a chance to bid again with enough extra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted April 6, 2010 Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 yep i agree it's not too good :o there must be something better... (I remember ulven's signature 'when the solution is not beautiful I know it's incorrect') but the second version is simple enough and fairly playable I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted April 6, 2010 Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 3N - not a problem. Don't tell me partner transferred to hearts on some J-6th please and blamed you. I'll restrain myself because you had the sense to put it in the BI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted April 6, 2010 Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 what responses jdonn? i've yet to see a really good structure I think you could find some responses around here if you looked hard enough. I might have suggested: 4♦/4♥ = balanced - 16-18/19-214♠/4N = trick source - whatever-17/18-20 I don't love this structure. ----- In another partnership we play 3 suit transfers which gives you some flexibility. ----- I don't hate Josh's structure, but I wouldn't make it promise solid suits since that is too restrictive. I'd rather break up the ranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinorKid Posted April 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 [hv=d=e&v=b&n=sxxhakjtxxdjtxckx&s=skxhqxdakqxxxcat2]133|200|Scoring: IMP[3♠] 3NT [P] (N)?[/hv] Transfer or ask? EDIT: it is KING of spade instead of ACE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 6, 2010 Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 I like ask and as south I show whatever includes my balanced 22 after which north will guess.... something. But if anyone can say they would reach 7 with confidence they are either lying or extremely impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinorKid Posted April 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2010 Let's go slowly...3NT (Spade stopper, expects 9 trick when N's 7HCP) 4♣ (artificial ask)4♦ (A solid suit) N ??? (???) N:♠ xx ♥ AKJTxx ♦ JTx ♣ Kx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinorKid Posted April 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2010 More on advancing over 3NT...My suggestion...4♣ artificial hand ask:--- 4♦ solid suit--- 4♥ not balance but no solid suit--- 4♠+ Balance ranges4♦ 4♥ 4♠ 5♣ Transfer to ♥/♠/♣/♦--- Break the transfer : showing a fit + own suit--- All coming bids are natural / cue 4NT Specific Aces4♣ then rebid a suit: natural4♣ rebid 4NT: ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinorKid Posted April 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2010 3NT 4♣4♦ 4♥4NT 5♦6♦ / 6♥ / 6NT perhaps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts