[Cyberyeti]

Ops were playing a big NT type system so 1N opener of whatever strength was not in the frame, 1♠ was 4+ cards, 2♣ was 9+ points ostensibly natural, when I asked about the auction, I was told that this was "basically the same as the Acol auction".

---

The auction went as above with some decidedly odd bids included (I'd never have found 3♣/3N, he deserved to catch A98xx, QJx, x, AQxx where 4♠ is good and 3N no play)

Then to compound this he drops the ♠ Qx offside

[hrothgar]

Responder has a 4-3-3-3 hand, with tenaces in the red suits

Bidding 3N does seem at all weird, at least not at MP

[Cyberyeti]

hrothgar, on 2022-May-22, 14:39, said:

Responder has a 4-3-3-3 hand, with tenaces in the red suits

Bidding 3N does seem at all weird, at least not at MP

Teams, does he have any reason to suspect more than a 10-11 count opposite, 3N could be -4 easily, 3♠ could be the right spot (or the least bad one)

[hrothgar]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-May-22, 15:29, said:

Teams, does he have any reason to suspect more than a 10-11 count opposite, 3N could be -4 easily, 3♠ could be the right spot (or the least bad one)

3!S might work great IF partner has a 5 card suit and a minimum hand.

Balanced against this, it could mean that we're playing a Moyisan at the 4 level with no ruffing values in dummy or, worse yet, wrong side 3NT

[Cyberyeti]

hrothgar, on 2022-May-22, 16:39, said:

3!S might work great IF partner has a 5 card suit and a minimum hand.

Balanced against this, it could mean that we're playing a Moyisan at the 4 level with no ruffing values in dummy or, worse yet, wrong side 3NT

Apparently something like AKQx, xxx, xx, Qxxx would be perfectly possible by their methods, I don't want to be any higher than 3♠ opposite that certainly want to be nowhere near 3N. (no idea if 3♠ is forcing for them)

[nullve]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-May-22, 13:21, said:

Then to compound this he drops the ♠ Qx offside

Wouldn't you after

♠J-(♠x)

?

[hrothgar]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-May-23, 00:17, said:

Apparently something like AKQx, xxx, xx, Qxxx would be perfectly possible by their methods, I don't want to be any higher than 3♠ opposite that certainly want to be nowhere near 3N. (no idea if 3♠ is forcing for them)

I don't think that you know nearly enough about the pairs methods to be making claims or insinuations

[Cyberyeti]

hrothgar, on 2022-May-23, 03:55, said:

I don't think that you know nearly enough about the pairs methods to be making claims or insinuations

They told us could be 4-4.