[aguahombre]

gwnn, on Dec 10 2009, 05:55 AM, said:

I agree with the way he bid it. If he transfers and bids 2NT, he is bidding the same way he'd do with KTxxx Qxx Kxx xx

I boisterously protest to the idea of passing 3♠!! Now partner could have AQx Axxx xxx AQx and we are getting 230! Surely if you didn't think this hand isn't worth a GF, at least now, when partner is known to hold 3 card support, you'd have better feelings about game?

Yes, I was being whatever about passing 3S once you create the game force.

Whitey Moore, a very steady club player, with some regional success, with whom I played back in the 60's was an advocate of the sequence being slammish and when a hand like responder's came up he bid according to "Whitey's Rule".

He simply transferred to the major and raised as an invite with marginal 5M-5m's.
Good, or bad, it would have worked well on this hand --as it did on several occasions when the 5-2 major fit made game in spades with 3NT going down. I never bothered to figure out the math of this, but it worked --and when invited in spades, 3NT was never chosen.

[jdonn]

I really don't understand these comments that "I wish the hearts were better but I'll bid 3NT anyway." Bidding 3NT here with spade support is something you can afford to wait for the ideal hand to do since 3♠ is a perfectly good option (that as said before, doesn't preclude playing in 3NT.) It's not like certain other auctions where you have to take a less than ideal action because nothing is ideal.

Fluffy, on Dec 10 2009, 05:53 AM, said:

♦A wasn't so useful at 4♠ josh

One of these days I'll learn that aces don't take tricks.