[cherdano]

Scoring: IMP

(2♠)-3♦-(P)-?

---

Your partner's overcalls in this position are maybe slightly more aggressive than expert standard, but definitely not wildly so. Your plan?

[mike777]

3s...maybe I can blame partner by cueing now and win the all important postmortem later.

If partner rebids 4D I will bid 4H rkc for D.

[whereagles]

Jlall, on Apr 1 2007, 08:06 PM, said:

4N looks like enough to me. Glad I have had the sense to define this as quantitative.

Good that you added the 2nd sentence. I was just about to ask you what you'd do if pard rebid 5♥ to show to 2 keycards

Anyway, I would try 3♠. That might give pard a headache, but he'll probably get out of the tank with a 4♦ bid, after which I'll continue torturing him with 4♥ or 4♠

[whereagles]

Oh, I didn't see it was quantitative. Actually, I hardly ever vote. I just type my answer

[inquiry]

4NT

[twcho]

I will bid 4NT if it is quantitative but I doubt pd will understand it if not agreed upon. And I doubt whether 4NT shd be used as quantitative as well.

[FrancesHinden]

twcho, on Apr 2 2007, 09:53 AM, said:

I will bid 4NT if it is quantitative but I doubt pd will understand it if not agreed upon. And I doubt whether 4NT shd be used as quantitative as well.

Can't see much other useful meaning for 4NT other than quantitative.

[skjaeran]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 2 2007, 03:13 PM, said:

twcho, on Apr 2 2007, 09:53 AM, said:

I will bid 4NT if it is quantitative but I doubt pd will understand it if not agreed upon. And I doubt whether 4NT shd be used as quantitative as well.

Can't see much other useful meaning for 4NT other than quantitative.

Completely agree.
4NT should be quantitative here.
If you wanted to BW, you'd just make a forcing raise first, then 4NT.

[pclayton]

4N seems right, but what exactly would you expect it to show in this sequence? 16-18? 17-19; 18-20?

[skjaeran]

pclayton, on Apr 2 2007, 05:48 PM, said:

4N seems right, but what exactly would you expect it to show in this sequence? 16-18? 17-19; 18-20?

17-20ish.
Depends on structure.

[Apollo81]

I'll join the "4NT quantitative" chorus.

[han]

Me too, would have bid it without the poll choices too.

[bid_em_up]

I see no reason to do anything other than create a forcing auction with 3♠ asking partner to further describe his hand.

[pclayton]

bid_em_up, on Apr 2 2007, 11:35 AM, said:

I see no reason to do anything other than create a forcing auction with 3♠ asking partner to further describe his hand.

You'll probably get a 3 minute tank, followed by the descriptive 4♦ rebid.

I think there's a consensus here for us to describe our hand to partner instead of v.v..

[Halo]

Can't vote, because 4NT will be RKCB. Now I see this hand that I have never held, I sort of wish it could be 4NT quantitative.

I am in the 3S camp.

[bid_em_up]

pclayton, on Apr 2 2007, 02:41 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Apr 2 2007, 11:35 AM, said:

I see no reason to do anything other than create a forcing auction with 3♠ asking partner to further describe his hand.

You'll probably get a 3 minute tank, followed by the descriptive 4♦ rebid.

I think there's a consensus here for us to describe our hand to partner instead of v.v..

cherdano said:

Your partner's overcalls in this position are maybe slightly more aggressive than expert standard, but definitely not wildly so. Your plan?

Phil,

My concern is that since it is stated that partners overcalls can be slightly more aggressive that a 4N bid is going to handcuff him when he holds something like:

x Qxx AKQJxxx xx

For all I know, this may be an average or decent overcall for him (He may well overcall 3D on x Qxx AQJxxx xxx, I don't know) so he may accept the quantitative raise when he shouldn't.

Partner should have no reason to go into the tank for 3 minutes, either they have a spade stop, or they have extras to show or they don't.

x Qxx AKQJxxx xx they can bid 5D over 3S.

x Qxx AQJxxx xxx they can bid 4D.

Anything better they can show either with 3N (spade A) or cuebid 4H. (It must be a cue).

But to each their own.