[jschafer]

---

Matchpoints.

[gwnn]

I don't like double. Partner will never understand that we have only 3 cards in the majors. I like 4NT as natural and maybe this is a good hand for it.

[Hanoi5]

6♦. 4♦ should be enough but I don't want to risk it, 3NT is very pessimistic, 4♣ will eventually lead to a NT contract (partner will very likely think we have hearts so s/he'll convert ♦'s to ♥'s and we'll have to settle for NT) and so I don't feel scientific about this one.

If 4NT is natural we just moved to a bizarre world; partner is more likely to think we have the reds than to pass or continue in NT.

[gwnn]

Frances and a few others on these forums also live in this bizarre world. I can't find the posts where she said so. Note that I'm not saying that 4NT is best here, just that I don't like double and I like 4NT as natural. Neither did I say that I'd ever bid 4NT if it was undiscussed.

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2011-April-05, 07:31

[Hanoi5]

gwnn, on 2011-April-05, 07:25, said:

Frances and a few others on these forums also live in this bizarre world.

Actually, bridge players live in a sort of bizarre world. The question here however is, how many people expect (3x)-4NT to be natural, how likely are you to get that kind hand and what's more useful: to describe a strong two-suiter or to describe a stronger than normal NT type of hand when one of the opponents holds a one suiter. Then I maintain that 4NT as natural is bizarre.

Of course with pre-emptives getting weaker by the minute and anyone being able to play anything you have every right to agree this treatment with your partner. But it reminds me of the story about the Italians playing a very complicated system for the strong 4441, and then one day one of them got the hand for it, and he didn't use the convention!

[gwnn]

I don't think the question is how many people expect (3x)-4NT to be natural, so long as I made it clear that I would never bid (3x)-4NT if it was undiscussed. As to the other questions (relative frequency/utility), it's too hard to prove or disprove with objective arguments. I personally don't remember getting either type of hand in the last two or so years. For what it's worth, though, I like 4C as diamonds+major, 4D as majors, 4NT as natural.

[whereagles]

There are good chances of a diamond fit across because I have length in clubs, so this is an easy 6♦ for me. I'm hoping for 1 filler card in pard, of course. I'd bid a mere 5 if I were feeling a bid depressed or on Zia's "heat 3".