[JLOGIC]

rhm, on 2012-April-09, 01:34, said:

I agree and I do not really support or recommend the 2NT rebid.

Do you recommend it if you play 1D p 1S p 3S p 3N as artificial? I do not understand the strong desire to play 3N here, we have 4 card support and a ruffing value. I do not think most people play 3N over 3S as serious or nonserious, my serious 3N rules are only when an 8 card major suit fit is established *AND WE ARE IN A GF* *AND WHEN THE AUCTION IS NOT COMPETITIVE.* However playing standard I often play 3N as an asking bid over 3S as a special agreement. Regardless, it would not change my bid as south, bidding 2N and passing 3N is such a gamble that I think has a minus expectation, even if sometimes 3N is right, we might not find it. I do not think it is resulting to say that bidding 2N and passing 3N will usually lose. If I thought it would usually win, I'd bid 2N for sure and recommend it.

[rhm]

JLOGIC, on 2012-April-09, 01:55, said:

Do you recommend it if you play 1D p 1S p 3S p 3N as artificial?

No, 2NT is probably still anti percentage.

JLOGIC, on 2012-April-09, 01:55, said:

I do not understand the strong desire to play 3N here, we have 4 card support and a ruffing value. I do not think most people play 3N over 3S as serious or nonserious, my serious 3N rules are only when an 8 card major suit fit is established *AND WE ARE IN A GF* *AND WHEN THE AUCTION IS NOT COMPETITIVE.* However playing standard I often play 3N as an asking bid over 3S as a special agreement. Regardless, it would not change my bid as south, bidding 2N and passing 3N is such a gamble that I think has a minus expectation, even if sometimes 3N is right, we might not find it. I do not think it is resulting to say that bidding 2N and passing 3N will usually lose. If I thought it would usually win, I'd bid 2N for sure and recommend it.

Remember this is matchpoints not IMPs. Your ruffing value consists of Qx, which means your third round ruffing value is duplicated by a third round control, the queen.
These are often good scenarios for suggesting notrump. Your argument would be stronger if you held Ax in clubs.
But I agree the overall risk ending up in notrump here when spades will play at least one trick better is too big. I would consider 2NT only if I were desperate for tops and then I would probably still reject it here.

Rainer Herrmann

[JLOGIC]

rhm, on 2012-April-09, 02:22, said:

No, 2NT is probably still anti percentage.

[snip...]

But I agree the overall risk ending up in notrump here when spades will play at least one trick better is too big. I would consider 2NT only if I were desperate for tops and then I would probably still reject it here.

Rainer Herrmann

I totally agree with you then. It's not like 2N cannot work, but I think it is a bad bid.