[ArtK78]

In my opinion, 4NT was natural.

4♠ should be RKCB for clubs.

As to what to do over 4♣, I can't argue with jumping to slam or bidding 4♠ first, regardless of what your agreement (or lack thereof) is as to the meaning of 4♠. 4NT really doesn't help much, and it seems to me that you want to play this hand in clubs, as partner should have at least 6 (or a good 5) to introduce the suit at this level. Even if partner interprets 4NT as natural, it doesn't show this good of a hand.

By the way, how did partner intend 4NT? Quite frankly, I can't tell by looking at his hand.

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Mar 12 2008, 10:32 PM, said:

Any reason why you didn't preempt with the West hand?

If youre 2nd seat, I understand, but I hope you don't start babbling about mixed strategy Richard

As Tim points out, I was red and they were white

Doesn't look like a 2nd seat vulnerable 3m preempt

[jdonn]

I think east should bid 6♣ without having firm agreements. Just be practical.

For what I think things should mean, 4NT natural, 4♠ strong club raise, no keycard.

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on Mar 12 2008, 12:53 PM, said:

pclayton, on Mar 12 2008, 10:32 PM, said:

Any reason why you didn't preempt with the West hand?

If youre 2nd seat, I understand, but I hope you don't start babbling about mixed strategy Richard

As Tim points out, I was red and they were white

Doesn't look like a 2nd seat vulnerable 3m preempt

OK. You didn't mention vulnerability. Its why I asked.

[Cascade]

TimG, on Mar 13 2008, 08:29 AM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 12 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

I might bid 6♣ rather than 4NT with your partner's hand.  You have competed with 4♣ so you will have something.

Could that something be x xx AJxx ATxxxx?

No I would bid 5♣ with that.

[Cascade]

Oh by the way ...

I think 4NT is natural. This comes straight from the school that thinks if it can be natural it is natural. (Assuming no explicit discussion).

[gnasher]

Cascade, on Mar 12 2008, 10:55 PM, said:

TimG, on Mar 13 2008, 08:29 AM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 12 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

I might bid 6♣ rather than 4NT with your partner's hand.  You have competed with 4♣ so you will have something.

Could that something be x xx AJxx ATxxxx?

No I would bid 5♣ with that.

I would have bid 1♣ with that, even in second.

[foo]

E's hand may be too good for a simple 4N unless you have the explicit agreement that 4N here is Asking.

Better may be for E to cuebid 4S with that moose.

[Cascade]

gnasher, on Mar 13 2008, 10:46 PM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 12 2008, 10:55 PM, said:

TimG, on Mar 13 2008, 08:29 AM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 12 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

I might bid 6♣ rather than 4NT with your partner's hand.  You have competed with 4♣ so you will have something.

Could that something be x xx AJxx ATxxxx?

No I would bid 5♣ with that.

I would have bid 1♣ with that, even in second.

I might at favourable but wouldn't vulnerable and probably not nil vulnerable.