[dwar0123]

---

2♠ is weak.

Without any prior agreements intermediate-advanced level of play, did my bid mean what I intended it to mean?

[Quartic]

I don't see what else it could be. Any strong hand, or hand with ♠ support would have acted earlier.

[aguahombre]

Well, if it is Blackwood, you were really walking the pooch the first time.

[mck4711]

A direct 4NT bid would have been Blackwood. I would interpret this delayed 4NT-bid as Unusual, ie. showing both minors.

[dwar0123]

Partner thought it was some kind of gambling nt. Apparently it was so unusual that not even the opponents knew what to do and it got passed out undoubled. I went down 7 for 350 and quite a few imps our way(4♥ scores an over trick). Pard had 4♦ to the QJ and a void in ♣, 5♦ would have only gone down 1.

[bigbenvic]

dwar0123, on 2011-October-24, 23:41, said:

Partner thought it was some kind of gambling nt. Apparently it was so unusual that not even the opponents knew what to do and it got passed out undoubled. I went down 7 for 350 and quite a few imps our way(4♥ scores an over trick). Pard had 4♦ to the QJ and a void in ♣, 5♦ would have only gone down 1.

Commonly used as a pick a minor sacrifice bid (you haven't bit 2nt so not strong) you haven't supported spades so no fit, therefore only other likely hand is 6-5 or 6-6 in the other 2 suits, not wanting to pre-empt Partner's pre-empt. Once they've found 4h you have almost exactly the hand to do it with (no defensive card and 6511 shape)

[the hog]

Unusual, but given your hand also a very poor bid.

[whereagles]

Indeed. A 66 or 2065 would probably be more adequate.

[dwar0123]

Getting conflicting comments about the viability of the bid, any more input? The vulnerability was as favorable as you could get and given my partners preempt the opponents game was assuredly a lock. It seems going down for a max of 3 in either ♣ or ♦ was a better then average bet.

[Quartic]

dwar0123, on 2011-October-25, 11:31, said:

Getting conflicting comments about the viability of the bid, any more input? The vulnerability was as favorable as you could get and given my partners preempt the opponents game was assuredly a lock. It seems going down for a max of 3 in either ♣ or ♦ was a better then average bet.

Of course, by bidding 4NT, you might be pushing them into a making slam...

[dwar0123]

Pushing them to slam wasn't a big concern, they were the kind of opponents to leave in a non vul 4nt undoubled. I could lose all 13 tricks and still come out ahead.

[MrAce]

dwar0123, on 2011-October-24, 19:18, said:

---

2♠ is weak.

Without any prior agreements intermediate-advanced level of play, did my bid mean what I intended it to mean?

Yes 4NT means what you intended to.

I would not have done it though. Here is my reason(s);

-I expect pd to hold 6♠ and 3♥ and 4 card minors. Something like AQTxxx Jxx Qxx x - AKxxxx xxx Qx xx - AKxxxx xx Jxx xx

-Eventhough u have the minors in correct order (pd will choose ♣ from equal length) if he has 3♦ and stiff ♣ or 3♦ and xx ♣, playing 5♦ doubled will almost always give at least 500. There is a good chance u may be doomed in 5♦ also if 4-1 trump break and 4♥ bid makes it likely. You will get an early ruff and you know the rest of the story.

-Am i extremely annoyed defending 4♥ ? not really, i am not sure if we can defeat this at all but we have chances since i have stiff in pd's suit and a ♥.

It would be a good save if we can catch a 4 card minor but i think its unlikely. Assume he has 3♣ and 2♦ something like AQTxxx xx Qx xxx then we can give 500 on a lucky day but that wld make their 4♥ more defeatable also. But i would almost always take my chances of getting +100 vs bailing out a 500 to save 650. As i said i will probably give more than game to them by saving.