BBO Discussion Forums: This explanations on 3nt is incorrect. - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

This explanations on 3nt is incorrect.

#1 User is offline   lycier 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,612
  • Joined: 2009-September-28
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:China

Posted 2015-April-20, 02:57



3nt says " Game in notrump - 2-4♣,2-4♦,2-4♥,5♠,19-21hcp,22-Tps".
There are many problems on it.

1- What's "game in notrump"? It tells its pd : pd,you never change my decision,even with 7-card ♥ !!!
Is it correct?

2- If there is 20-21hcp in opener hand with 5-card ♠,I am afraid that it should be a opening mistake.

IMO,the explanations of 3nt is " Solid 5-6 cards ♠ with 19-21hcp without any singleton / voidness ".

So I think this explanation on 3nt is incorrect.
0

#2 User is offline   cloa513 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,528
  • Joined: 2008-December-02

Posted 2015-April-20, 05:57

You mean you feel its definition of that bid in that sequence is not good. Its explanation is totally correct ie totally accurate description of the hand it has however North's response that bid is totally stupid. The problem is that it has no clear forcing bid over 1NT so 3NT as 19-21 HCP is reasonable. I believe 2NT is not forcing neither is 2C or 2D. Its a standard problem with most systems- if you have forcing 1NT then there is no simple way to explore alternative contracts towards 3NT.
0
Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users