[MrAce]

whereagles, on 2012-February-08, 04:02, said:

Pard intended this as quantitative, but it is actually RKCB for spades. Even if it were indeed quantitative, that would be WILDLY optimistic (I told you he overbids lol).

I would think 4NT to be quantitative and 4♥ over 3♠ RKCB on ♠ because 4♥ can not be natural.

[FrancesHinden]

whereagles, on 2012-February-08, 04:02, said:

Thanks all. This was the full hand:

---

I held the North cards. I decided against pass because I felt LHO might be loaded with diamonds and pass this. Afterwards he said he would indeed pass 2♦. I didn't dbl because I wasn't strong enough to pull pard's response to spades, especially with that moth-eaten suit. So that seemed to leave me with an off shape 2NT. Here's what followed:

(2♦) ...

2NT 3♣ (puppet)
3♠ 4NT
..??

Pard intended this as quantitative, but it is actually RKCB for spades. Even if it were indeed quantitative, that would be WILDLY optimistic (I told you he overbids lol).

As to what happened in the end, I'll spare you the details. Suffice to say chalk +1 to the multi. Or rather +55 cross-imps

This is nothing to do with the multi, it's everything to do with you and your partner not knowing your methods after a 2NT overcall.

[FrancesHinden]

whereagles, on 2012-February-06, 04:21, said:

That one sound like "multi vs multi"

I usually play 2M natural and dbl Dixon (weak NT or very strong), but against 2D 'bad multi' i.e. showing a bad weak 2 in a major (as played in particular by Norwegians) I also like dbl = overcall in one major, because it reduces the risk that you overcall in their suit, and is a good way to pick up a penalty.

[FrancesHinden]

MrAce, on 2012-February-05, 16:12, said:

If u agree with your pd that opponents can not play it undoubled when they pass an artificial bid then you wont have to worry about 2♦ being passed out. Without this i would bid 2 NT.

That's a really bad agreement if the opponents know about it, it only works if they aren't aware of it.

[MrAce]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-February-08, 14:13, said:

That's a really bad agreement if the opponents know about it, it only works if they aren't aware of it.

I think i already wrote this in another thread.

I assume you are concerned that good opponents (even the bad ones) will simply pass each 2♦ opening knowing that you have to DBL and set you up. And i agree with this.

If we alert and let opponents know this we are screwed as you said, if we dont alert we are cheating. So DBL in balancing seat should not be AUTO on a passed artificial suit as oppose to what i said previously. That one was a quick fix for those who plays more MP and not too often against same good opponents.

In order to strip your side from this ethical trap you load the hands that passes in 2nd seat over 2♦ which can not be TOO strong. Thus balancing player does not have to AUTO balance. This simply makes it way too risky for opponents to AUTO pass all 2♦ openings with the intention to set you up, because balancer will occasionally pass.

After all, it’s not unlikely that, when they choose to pass the artificial bid, they had no right decision to make.

[whereagles]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-February-08, 14:10, said:

This is nothing to do with the multi, it's everything to do with you and your partner not knowing your methods after a 2NT overcall.

Well, I wanted opinions on what to overcall. What followed it was just for fun.

@MrAce: you know what? I actually had that 4♥ bid in the system as a spade slam try. Just that it wasn't written anywhere that in that context 4NT would turn to quantitative. Agree that it does make sense, though, so I might add it.

But I still think pard had no business bidding 4NT, even if the system says it's quantitative. If something, he could have bid 4♦. After all, if a slam is there, it's probably in DIAMONDS.