Cashout aginst 3NT

[mikeh]

Look....we had a go at it on another thread and a number of posters indicated that they didn't see any benefit to us slagging each other. I agree with them, and upposted the post that so stated. So let's not do that here.

 

I trust that you recognize that when I wrote that

 

'it is possible to construct hands on which any device fails'

 

I understood that for every method known to bridge, there will be situations with which it cannot cope.

 

No-one here is being, as far as I can tell, deliberately obtuse. I was merely pointing out that your example didn't advance your argument, not that it was impossible to create one that would, ok?

 

When you post on a forum such as this, you can expect that bad constructions will attract criticism. That is nothing personal, and I am sure that in the long run we all benefit because it leads to a reduction in the posting of bad constructions! Good constructions can engender appreciation of the points in issue, bad ones generally don't.

[Free]

How can North know his pard has 5 spades?

South overcalled 2♠ and it wasn't alerted. LOL

[whereagles]

Oh I missed that. Sry.

[phil_20686]

Let's be careful here... if you play low to give count you might let declarer win the 9 from AQ9 :)

 

that gives partner only two cards higher than the 4. Which is impossible if you play 4th best leads, he would have led the 2.

[barryallen]

Has someone edited the original hand, because I am having difficulty here? Because of the 2♠ over call, seeing dummy with 3 small ♠, holding ♠10xx, I would be giving count every time.

 

Because I expect declarer to have 2♠ and whatever card I play will have little affect on the tricks he takes. Even if declarer has 3♠, I can't see anything lost. If partner has 3 ♠ honours, I would expect to see one of them led, as it is it looks like partner and declarer have 2 each, with my only real constructive input to give count?