How should these 2 be bid?

[Hanoi5]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqj32h86d5cqj83&n=s4haqj943dkj3c762&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1sp2h3d3sp3nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

3NT goes down (on good defense). So does 4♥. 4♠ is easier.

 

You're playing MP's. Is the actual bidding sequence acceptable? Would you bid it differently using SAYC? How would this be bid using 2/1?

[Fluffy]

I think the bidding you made at the table is fine, specially at MPs. ♣QJ8x is a holding that plays much better in a suit contract than 3NT when they have a good suit. But AKQJxx is so good for NT that outweights the clubs IMO. You have to also add into the mixture that partner receives the lead in 3NT, but 4♠ is played by the wrong hand.

 

BTW it seems to me 4♠ is down if 3NT doesn't make.

[Zelandakh]

BTW it seems to me 4♠ is down if 3NT doesn't make.

♣AK, ♥K with West and ♦AQ with East perhaps?

 

The bidding is fine. If West had ♣xx and the defence took ♦A, ♣A, ♣K, ♣ ruff would you be looking for an ATB for 4♠ instead?

[rmnka447]

I really can't criticize either player for the bidding. South might consider passing, but at MPs not rebidding that lovely 6 card ♠ suit seems like a sin of the 1st order. I'd certainly be bidding 3 ♠ with that hand. North is sort of stuck for a bid. Unless East is insane, East likely has both missing ♦ honors. So from North's viewpoint, South looks to be holding some ♣ pieces for the 3 ♠ call.

 

I forget if it was Hamman or Wolff who said if 3 NT is among the logical possibilities, then it probably should be bid. Given that South has ♠s and something in ♣s, 3 NT certainly is a possibility from North's viewpoint and should be bid. It's an unfortunate hand because South doen't have better ♣s, but those are the breaks.

[Phil]

♣AK, ♥K with West and ♦AQ with East perhaps?

 

Does that sound like a red/white 3♦ overcall? Even though West is a passed hand, I would expect the diamond bidder to have one club honor.