[whereagles]

The_Hog, on May 5 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

Nuno, I think you should come to Laos. Most beautiful women in Asia.

hum..... well, that's tempting indeed

[1eyedjack]

Jlall, on May 5 2008, 11:58 AM, said:

It seems unusual to me that you want the hand with all the tricks to not be the one trying for game, and that you want the relatively weak hand to be trying because he has a couple of stoppers.

Agree it's unusual. It was just an idea. It seemed to have 2 significant plus points going for it - (1) it allows you to bail out in 3♣ if the game try is declined, while any GT by partner will be above that bid, and (2) partner may be disinclined to make the try on the unlikely offchance that I have both the stoppers.

[ArtK78]

Not getting to game on these cards is not the worst sin in the world. On the expected heart lead (and possibly even on a spade lead) you are likely down if the ♣Q does not fall.

North might make a move over a raise to 3♣, but I expect that NS will play in 3♣ on this auction.

[dcvetkov]

ArtK78, on May 5 2008, 10:34 AM, said:

Not getting to game on these cards is not the worst sin in the world. On the expected heart lead (and possibly even on a spade lead) you are likely down if the ♣Q does not fall.

North might make a move over a raise to 3♣, but I expect that NS will play in 3♣ on this auction.

Ditto

One sensible bid for North is 3♦, confirming stopper and asking South to bid 3NT with stoppers in other suits and generally good maximum hand. Many South may they re-evaluate and then bid 3NT, but this contract will be a minority.

[1eyedjack]

ArtK78, on May 5 2008, 04:34 PM, said:

Not getting to game on these cards is not the worst sin in the world. On the expected heart lead (and possibly even on a spade lead) you are likely down if the ♣Q does not fall.

Yes, I did not think that needed stating. Still, Q falling in 2 rounds is better than 50% - well over the minimum justification.