[MinorKid]

Scoring: IMP

[3♠] ?

---

[hanp]

3NT, not close.

[Jlall]

hanp, on Apr 6 2010, 02:02 AM, said:

3NT, not close.

Yep. The general rule over preempts is to assume partner has 7 points and bid accordingly, so in this case you have enough for 3N easily with a good source of tricks, stopper, and lots of HCP.

[awm]

Agree 3NT. Passing with this good a hand can't possibly be right, and while it's true that you can't make 3NT if partner has no help for you, you're not going to make 4♦ then either. Double might work but will lead to a lot of ridiculous 4♥ contracts (on 4-2 fits even) when you are cold for 3NT.

I think you might get more interesting answers if the spades were two small though.

[jdonn]

It's not unanimous already???

[mohitz]

3NT looks clear.

At the risk of hijacking the thread, what methods do people play over a 3NT overcall?

[jjbrr]

mohitz, on Apr 6 2010, 01:58 AM, said:

3NT looks clear.

At the risk of hijacking the thread, what methods do people play over a 3NT overcall?

4♣ stayman, no transfers.

Agree with others about unanimous 3NT

[jdonn]

I play 4♣ an ask about overcallers hand with artificial responses, 4♦/4♥ transfers. I think in theory 4♠ should be another artificial ask (maybe a stronger one) but I've never bothered.

[gwnn]

what responses jdonn? i've yet to see a really good structure

[jdonn]

I have nothing that good either! I would play something like

4♦: Solid suit, 4♥ asks which with 2-under xfer answers and something fancy should be played over that, 4NT over 4♦ to play although since values have now been shown it can be overruled with extras.
4♥: "Stretch" (meaning "I was just kidding please don't hate me", ie Kxx x Axx AQJxxx)
4♠+: Balanced ranges.

Thinking outloud, maybe this would be better:
4♦/4♥/4♠: Stayman responses with balanced hands up to something like 20.
4NT: Stretch
5♣+: Bidding a solid suit

Told you I have nothing good.

Edit: That should be transfer stayman responses with 4♠ denying a major so the balanced hand gets a chance to bid again with enough extra.

[gwnn]

yep i agree it's not too good there must be something better... (I remember ulven's signature 'when the solution is not beautiful I know it's incorrect')

but the second version is simple enough and fairly playable I guess.

[Phil]

3N - not a problem.

Don't tell me partner transferred to hearts on some J-6th please and blamed you.

I'll restrain myself because you had the sense to put it in the BI.

[Phil]

gwnn, on Apr 6 2010, 09:26 AM, said:

what responses jdonn? i've yet to see a really good structure

I think you could find some responses around here if you looked hard enough.

I might have suggested:

4♦/4♥ = balanced - 16-18/19-21
4♠/4N = trick source - whatever-17/18-20

I don't love this structure.

-----

In another partnership we play 3 suit transfers which gives you some flexibility.

-----

I don't hate Josh's structure, but I wouldn't make it promise solid suits since that is too restrictive. I'd rather break up the ranges.

[MinorKid]

Scoring: IMP

[3♠] 3NT [P] (N)?

---

Transfer or ask?

EDIT: it is KING of spade instead of ACE

[jdonn]

I like ask and as south I show whatever includes my balanced 22 after which north will guess.... something. But if anyone can say they would reach 7 with confidence they are either lying or extremely impressive.

[MinorKid]

Let's go slowly...
3NT (Spade stopper, expects 9 trick when N's 7HCP) 4♣ (artificial ask)
4♦ (A solid suit) N ??? (???)

N:
♠ xx
♥ AKJTxx
♦ JTx
♣ Kx

[MinorKid]

More on advancing over 3NT...
My suggestion...
4♣ artificial hand ask:
--- 4♦ solid suit
--- 4♥ not balance but no solid suit
--- 4♠+ Balance ranges
4♦ 4♥ 4♠ 5♣ Transfer to ♥/♠/♣/♦
--- Break the transfer : showing a fit + own suit
--- All coming bids are natural / cue

4NT Specific Aces
4♣ then rebid a suit: natural
4♣ rebid 4NT: ???

[MinorKid]

3NT 4♣
4♦ 4♥
4NT 5♦
6♦ / 6♥ / 6NT perhaps