[gwnn]

I was South and a bit after I went for -150 (lucky!! -100 would have been worse cos then its a game swing) I had about the same thoughts, 3♣ would have been better and 3NT was terrible but partner should have removed it. I wasn't sure how strong each factor was. Thanks everyone. And sorry partner for being a genius (it's easy to apologize when I know he's not readin).

Anyway we got -3 imps from every table ('Cavendish') so that was quite tough too.

[barmar]

rd6789, on Nov 25 2009, 08:31 AM, said:

I would think if S bids 3NT this is showing a hand which is confident of taking 9 tricks after hearing partner's support of H but less confident of taking 10 - maybe Ax,xxx,AKxxxx,AK

I would pass as N trusting S to have this hand.

I think you have some hearts mixed in with your diamonds.

[peachy]

South 100%, North another 80% .
If South wants to investigate 3NT on the basis that 2H only promises 3-card support, fine - investigate but don't count on Axx being a double stopper LOL. If North wants to leave 3NT in, fine - just don't have have 4-card support and xx in their suit.

[aguahombre]

peachy, on Nov 25 2009, 10:55 AM, said:

South 100%, North another 80% .
If South wants to investigate 3NT on the basis that 2H only promises 3-card support, fine - investigate but don't count on Axx being a double stopper LOL. If North wants to leave 3NT in, fine - just don't have have 4-card support and xx in their suit.

nice one, peachy.

[kfay]

aguahombre, on Nov 24 2009, 09:43 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Nov 24 2009, 07:17 PM, said:

3NT is not an unreasonable contract, and i should point out that on a C lead you may well lose 1C, 1S and 2H in 4H if the H do not play well. I don't see much blame to be laid anywhere.

Really? 3NT goes down, 4H might go down. If we choose 0 % over something more than zero percent --our teammates might have a different opinion about whether there is blame involved.

LOL! Yes this is very well said