[mr1303]

---

This was our Precision based auction with natural responses.

Should 3NT here be some sort of serious/frivolous response, or does it suggest the 2S was a fudge with not much else to bid, e.g. with AQx of spades?

[MickyB]

The fudge would only be relevant on something like 3523 with xxx club, right? I'd say 2S shows four but can see the argument that it shouldn't.

If you agree that 2S can be three cards, then I suggest 3S and 3N are raises without and with club stops respectively, thus you wouldn't really need 3N over 3S as a desire to play. Although I guess that still falls down when you have xxx opposite xxxx in clubs or something.

[lalldonn]

3NT is serious/frivolous. Just think of it as a normal standard 2/1 auction. I like to have the default rebid be your major so I would just always rebid 2♥ as responder if I was stuck (balanced with no club stopper). If your prefered style is to have 2NT be the default rebid then I don't like it so much but it's ok. However I don't know of anyone who would bid 1♥ p 2♦ p 2♠ on a three card suit, and this is a perfect example of why.

Even if that was your style to rebid 2♠ on AQX here because you are worried about clubs, you wouldn't want to bid 3NT natural now. I mean think of the logic you would be using. I have xxx of some suit and I don't want to bid notrump so I make up another suit where I have strength. Partner shows length in that suit and NOW I want to bid the still-wrongsided notrump, having additionally told the opponents that I wasn't eager to bid it before?

All of that is aside from the fact that serious/frivolous 3NT is pretty important here, given that both players are unlimited.

[the hog]

3NT is to play here. 2S was 4th suit forcing, not natural and Sth showed his shape. Nth chose the contract.

[MickyB]

the hog, on 2012-September-11, 18:20, said:

2S was 4th suit forcing

Fairly sure it wasn't

[lalldonn]

the hog, on 2012-September-11, 18:20, said:

3NT is to play here. 2S was 4th suit forcing, not natural and Sth showed his shape. Nth chose the contract.

I could make some sarcastic rude reply about not reading the original post since you just called me out on that, but instead I'll just recommend you read the original post.

[the hog]

How did I call you out as i did not even read your reply before posting? Don't be so sensitive. Did not see it was a Precision auction - too early in the morning.

[Zelandakh]

the hog, on 2012-September-11, 19:25, said:

How did I call you out as i did not even read your reply before posting?

It was probably one of the other 7891 posts where you were unnecessarily rude when replying to a post.

[Codo]

Back to the topic: 2♠ as non natural makes not much sense, at least not undiscussed. And even discussed, I would like to have it natural, so 3 NT is not to play.

[WGF_Flame]

This should be same as
1H-2D
2S-3S
3NT
in normal 2 over 1.

[Free]

Seems like responder showed 5♥-4♠ and opener showed 5♦-4♠, so I'd take it as serious/frivolous. This fancy stuff about bidding 2♠ on AQx is too far fetched imo.

[akhare]

There's no reason to suspect that 2♠ wasn't natural (given that we are already in a GF).

So, 3N can't be to play...

[nigel_k]

My rule: if the fit may be 5-3 and at least one hand is limited, it is an offer to play. Otherwise it is serious/non-serious.

I don't play strong club so don't have to decide what to do with one of a major in a strong club context, but I would probably choose to treat that as unlimited.

[the hog]

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-12, 01:50, said:

It was probably one of the other 7891 posts where you were unnecessarily rude when replying to a post.

Like your idiotic comment in this one?

[mr1303]

Ignoring the argument here, partner held AQ98, K763, J7, Q53.

She had misbid with the first response. 3nt wasn't in any difficulties but 4S was better, and 6S makes on the layout of the cards