no blame 1

[lmilne]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=skqhkj8daqj52ca83&s=sajt6ha753d9764c4]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

2NT-3C-3D-3NT.

[dake50]

Worth one try with 2xA +C-single.

I show C-short after Stayman response 4C.

Now partner's 4D is enough to try key ask.

[Hanoi5]

I play Baron:

 

2NT-3NT asks partner to start bidding 4-card suits in ascending order. It'll probably go 2N-3N-4♦-6♦.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

if you have the option to go looking for a minor suit fit, being

able to stop in 4NT, I guess it is worth a try, but otherwise I

think that the blame to goes to the methods.

 

We would end up in 3NT.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

I would have bid 3NT also.

 

Maybe 4♣ as minor suit ask if opener can show a 5-card diamonds. But I am resulting now. In practice I wouldn't bother.

[the hog]

I play Baron:

 

2NT-3NT asks partner to start bidding 4-card suits in ascending order. It'll probably go 2N-3N-4♦-6♦.

♠ Kxx

♥ KJ8

♦ AQ5x

♣ AK3

 

♠ AJT6

♥ A753

♦ 9764

♣ 4

 

 

2NT 3NT

4D 6D

 

Same sequence, not a great contract!

 

I would have played 3NT unless playing a relay system.

[Cyberyeti]

Methods problem, we use a version of 5 card major enquiry that would go:

 

2N-3C

3N (2 spades, not more than 3 hearts)-4D (nat 4 cards +)

4H (RKCB)-5C (2 without)

6D

[Jlall]

This is totally normal

[whereagles]

Indeed. You'd need either a strong club system or a gadget to bid 4441s over 2NT to dig out this one.

 

I think Ron Klinger has one such gadget on his book "5-card major stayman".

[jjbrr]

unlucky

[paulg]

'No blame' was the title. Seemed appropriate.

[Fluffy]

slam killer made it again, but my grandma plays 16-18 1NT and opens 1♦ reaching 6 lol.

[jdonn]

Precisionnnnnn

[mikeh]

I do, in one partnership, have a method for responder to show a 4441 hand with 3+ controls.

 

But, it is far from clear that we should be using it here: we have a combined 29-30 count, with no assurance of even one 8 card fit.

 

And the methods essentially commit us to 4N or 5suit.

 

I think, in real life, unless stuck in a match, late, I'd just bid 3N.

 

When you try to justify reaching every good contract, you end up, in real life, reaching too many bad ones.

[MinorKid]

IMO if the ♦QJ were ♣QJ then we would perfer 3NT.

I can't think of any system that can specify those honors below 5NT.

 

if the ♦AQJxx were ♦AKQxx (subtracting an outside Q) i prefer 1♦ -> 3♦ forcing or 1♦ -> 2♥/2♠ -> 3♦

[peachy]

No blame. I play Puppet Stayman so 2NT-3C-3NT[no 4 or 5-card major] - now 4D if I think I need a top or an IMP swing, but normally Pass. Even after 4D, we can still stop at 4NT if partner bids it over 4D. And ten tricks should not pose a problem so the mild adventure will usually not cost.

[jdonn]

No blame. I play Puppet Stayman so 2NT-3C-3NT[no 4 or 5-card major] - now 4D if I think I need a top or an IMP swing, but normally Pass. Even after 4D, we can still stop at 4NT if partner bids it over 4D. And ten tricks should not pose a problem so the mild adventure will usually not cost.

It will cost if xxxx opposite whatever partner raises with expecting you normally have a 5 card suit (KJxx say) turns out to be an inferior trump suit...