[jillybean]

---

[Cyberyeti]

If you have 4N quantitative available, it's what you want to bid, if not I guess 3♦.

[Douglas43]

Subject to defining partner's 3♣ agree with Cyberyeti's first choice. We have 17 with fabulous controls but not a great fit, and partner's bid is at least "a king over minimum" (taken to be a good 14 upwards) we must be close to 6NT.

4NT is unambiguously quantitative because we have a natural 4♣ (or 3♠) to set the suit as trumps. A pair that plays the system must have an agreement as to the minimum hcp value of 3♣, but on the basis that "a king over minimum" means 14hcp, then 4NT from me. If "a king over minimum" means a good 15 hcp upwards, then 6NT direct.

[LBengtsson]

I see problem. if p is 5♣/5♠ no ♦ control, say 5♠1♥2♦5♣ if you bid 3♦ then what partner bid next 3♠(?), then what do you next bid? 4NT? quantitative or rkcb?

with good controls and 17 points I would gamble 6nt after 3♣ - not science but the ♠A is a good card. you might get ♦ lead from the ♦K. 6nt looks about where you want to be, except if partner comes up with ♠KQJ10x ♥xx ♦x ♣AKQxx so sensible bid is 3♦ after 3♣

[Cyberyeti]

LBengtsson, on 2021-March-22, 08:19, said:

I see problem. if p is 5♣/5♠ no ♦ control, say 5♠1♥2♦5♣ if you bid 3♦ then what partner bid next 3♠(?), then what do you next bid? 4NT? quantitative or rkcb?

with good controls and 17 points I would gamble 6nt after 3♣ - not science but the ♠A is a good card. you might get ♦ lead from the ♦K. 6nt looks about where you want to be, except if partner comes up with ♠KQJ10x ♥xx ♦x ♣AKQxx so sensible bid is 3♦ after 3♣

Well also unless partner comes up with KJxxx, Q, KJx, KQJx where 4N is plenty

[jillybean]

---

[Douglas43]

This illustrates why 4NT was better than 3♦. Now 4NT would be ambiguous. I'd punt 6NT and hope for the best.

[jillybean]

Actually, we can stop after the 3♣ bid. All I needed to check was my belief, with what I hold opposite "a K more than min", is that we should be in 6nt.

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2021-March-22, 13:34, said:

Actually, we can stop after the 3♣ bid. All I needed to check was my belief, with what I hold opposite "a K more than min", is that we should be in 6nt.

Depends what the K above minimum looks like, there are plenty of minimum hands where 6 is good (KQJ10x, Q, Kxx, Axxx is cold for example)

[pescetom]

Is this MP?

[jillybean]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-March-22, 15:37, said:

Depends what the K above minimum looks like, there are plenty of minimum hands where 6 is good (KQJ10x, Q, Kxx, Axxx is cold for example)

I mean we can stop the discussion, not the bidding

It was MP.
.

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2021-March-22, 21:20, said:

I mean we can stop the discussion, not the bidding

It was MP.
.

What I was trying to say is that you need to invite a slam but not bid one, but also that partner needs to look at texture more than points on whether they accept.