[sceptic]

1NT 2 diamonds 4NT

what does 4NT mean?

[babalu1997]

If it is 2/1 or sayc, it likely means that the 1NT bidder was dealt extra cards and is interested in slam opposise as little as zero hcp from responder.

[skjaeran]

I guess the sequence is:
1NT - (2♦) - 4NT

If so, 4NT is natural and quantitative (NF, inv) to me. Just like if there was no overcall.

[matmat]

on bbo with a random partner this is an ace-ask
sensible people play quant.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

no idea, but basically the bid does not exists.
If I would have a hand, which would like to
go for 6NT, I think I first try to go after 2D.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[rogerclee]

Quantitative, probably with a diamond control.

[CSGibson]

rogerclee, on Apr 19 2008, 02:01 PM, said:

Quantitative, probably with a diamond control.

Quantitative without a diamond control - would go through lebensohl with

[P_Marlowe]

Just a simple question:

Does one really thinks 1 diamonds control
is enough to give slam a fair chance?

Because the beautiful diamond control will
get attacked with the lead and than be gone,
which means we need 12 cashing tricks, and
hence the probability for making the slam
may well be 50% but not a lot higher.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 20 2008, 02:22 AM, said:

Just a simple question:

Does one really thinks 1 diamonds control
is enough to give slam a fair chance?

Because the beautiful diamond control will
get attacked with the lead and than be gone,
which means we need 12 cashing tricks, and
hence the probability for making the slam
may well be 50% but not a lot higher.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Huh? If we have the ace of diamonds, and partner accepts the slam invitation with nothing in diamonds, we have like 28 or 29 points in the three suits outside diamonds. If he accepts the invitation and I had my bid I'm not the least bit worried.

[P_Marlowe]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2008, 02:58 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Apr 20 2008, 02:22 AM, said:

Just a simple question:

Does one really thinks 1 diamonds control
is enough to give slam a fair chance?

Because the beautiful diamond control will
get attacked with the lead and than be gone,
which means we need 12 cashing tricks, and
hence the probability for making the slam
may well be 50% but not a lot higher.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Huh? If we have the ace of diamonds, and partner accepts the slam invitation with nothing in diamonds, we have like 28 or 29 points in the three suits outside diamonds. If he accepts the invitation and I had my bid I'm not the least bit worried.

And if he does not, you play 4NT,
I would say playing 4NT with a 50%
success rate is not a good proposition.

But it may just be, that we have different views
on the world, sometimes my glasses are half
empty.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 20 2008, 03:26 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 20 2008, 02:58 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Apr 20 2008, 02:22 AM, said:

Just a simple question:

Does one really thinks 1 diamonds control
is enough to give slam a fair chance?

Because the beautiful diamond control will
get attacked with the lead and than be gone,
which means we need 12 cashing tricks, and
hence the probability for making the slam
may well be 50% but not a lot higher.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Huh? If we have the ace of diamonds, and partner accepts the slam invitation with nothing in diamonds, we have like 28 or 29 points in the three suits outside diamonds. If he accepts the invitation and I had my bid I'm not the least bit worried.

And if he does not, you play 4NT,
I would say playing 4NT with a 50%
success rate is not a good proposition.

So would I. I would also say making up 50% numbers out of thin air for contracts that are making far more than that is not a good proposition.