LBengtsson

I agree with this though the slight reservation is if the opps. outbid us, declarer will have a idea of the distribution, and may play the hand differently due to my X.

helene_t and mikeh are right - as always. All I can add, AL78 is that you are engrossed with your 'nice' hand, (which is not so nice with a stiff ♦K) you are not listening to partner. Think about it further... ...you have a 22 count, opener has probably 11 minimum, opener's partner has at least 6 HCPs, so what can your partner have? Yes, I agree there are hands where 4♥/4♠ will make, but once you hear the 4♦ bid from East, it is time to shut up. What sort of dog did the player own? Chihuahua? They are nasty little brats similar, on this occasion, to their owner it seems :)

Interesting statistics. Thanks for sharing. It would be good to know also - sorry for asking - whether different point ranges, for example 20-21 balanced opposite 12 skew the results, or do they 'tighten' the criteria as the no-trump range is now only 2HCP as opposed to 3HCP with a 15-17NT. Just a complete guess - though I think my math is right - but is 15-17 opposite 17 not the most likeliest high card point distribution of the 32-34 range, and 12-14 opposite 20 would come up more often? 12-14 point hands 20.63% opposite a 20 point hand 0.64% = 21.27% 15-17 point hands 10.09% opposite a 17 point hand 2.36% = 12.45% Just from bridge experience at the table, I cannot recall many hands where I have had 17 balanced opposite a strong NT, but it is more likely that the bidding goes 1♣ - 1♥ - 2NT (18-19 balanced) - and then you have to make a decision with a balanced 14HCP hand. (This is why I asked about the 2HCP point range above.) I realise that the 32-33 combination is different from the 32-34 but smerriman calculated that opener will have a minimum 55% of the time with the 3HCP point range, so I guess with the 2HCP range having a minimum would be far greater.

Welcome to the forum, XenoCat. Your first two questions have been answered correctly imo. Your third question "Does East's - I think you mean South's 3♦ - bid show a high minimum at least?" is less clear to answer, I feel. The vulnerability and South's hand is right for you to come in over a 2♥ pre=empt. That is, to compete in the auction. High point-wise you have 14, which I guess is what you mean by a high minimum. But there are plenty of other hands where it would be right to come in with less points and more distribution. Say you had ♠Qx ♥x ♦KQ10xxx ♣A109x, I would be bidding 3♦ here also. The reason why I say this is that if the opps. have a 4♥ game on, it is possible that you may have a 5♦ contract (going no more than three down doubled) as a profitable sacrifice at this vulnerability.

I agree. Jillybean's post says without agreements. I think many players will take 4♦ as forcing. I think the real problem here (now having seen the hand) is what North does next.

I do not want to complicate this to someone new to this forum, but by inference as partner has bid 1NT instead of 1♠ he does not have a 4 card ♠ suit. Experts use a convention called Gazzilli (where opener rebids 2♣ (instead of 2♠) as a artificial forcing bid) for hands like these where the 1NT response to a 1♥ opening can be various meanings/hands. Obviously, in your auction, partner should not have passed the 2♠ reverse you made.

Coning to this late after the hand was posted. Given your ♥ void, and shortness in the ♣ suit, there is only a small chance imo that this hand will end in a 3♦ contract. Yes, I can construct hands where a 3♦ bid will be passed out. I am in the school of thought that a 3♦ bid here is forcing - any bid (except one that is conventional) is forcing by a partner who has not yet bid as long as that bid is not at the game level. And, I agree, other players prefer NF here. Why suppress such a long and reasonably good suit? The 4♦ jump fit is an option also. It looks like both sides have a double fit but we have the top suit, spades ♠. It is important that you show partner what sort of hand you have here, as even at red the opps. may have a profitable sacrifice. To not bid the ♦ suit is crazy.

Yes, AL78, I agree very frustrating. The only very small conclusion is if declarer had ♣AKQ in 5332 shape - I assume you are playing Acol in England with weak no-trump, is that would leave ♠106 ♥xxx in declarer's hand, so with two suits unguarded maybe declarer might prefer a 1♦ opening with this hand - and I am only really guessing here. And obviously, with ♣AKQ they could have made the contract, so why did they misplay at trick 2? Suggests to me they do not have ♣AKQ QED (quod erat demonstrandum.) I expect most players would still open a weak NT with ♠10x ♥xxx ♦AJxxx ♣AKQ for its pre-emptive value, and there is not, imo, a great rebid after 1♦ - 1♠ - (2♣ or 2♦?) sequence. I do not think a 1NT rebid (15-16) is in picture, upgrading this hand - it does not look like any sort of upgrade On probability, declarer is more likely to have ♣AQJ, AQ10, AQx, AJ10, AJx, Axx than ♣AKQ so there are many more combinations where a ♥ switch will win before playing the second ♠.

North's hand looks more opening or overcalling hand territory, than pre-emptive territory. I am not criticizing 3♣ (as you play it this way) but there is always the chance that you will pre-empt partner with your bid. AK in a six-card suit has defensive possibilities whereas KQJT in a seven-card suit has virtually none.

A smooth pass will make life difficult for the opps. The chances of taking 9 tricks in no-trumps looks statistically less of a chance (with correct defense) than making a definite part score. The only problem with passing though is that the opps. may find their ♠ fit at the three level, and what do you do then (?) but if the opps. have a ♠ fit at the three level, then the chances are - given your shortness is in the ♠ suit - that they would have lead a ♠ against 3NT. It is a real spin coin decision imo. You are not forced to bid here. It is 4x more likely partner has a six timer than a seven. I go with the odds that 3NT is only going to be made with poor defense, or partner having ♣AKxxxxx and the ♣ suit breaking 2-2. I think there are plenty more hands where it will go down, I guess. Edit: Writing answer at the same time as jillybean discloses hand lol :)

That is the key part of the sentence: just over 50% so it is in your favor to bid a small slam most of the time with 33HCP.

I would have put the question another way. Is this worth a raise to 4♣ when partner opens white/red in 3rd seat after two passes, and RHO opp. doubles? [hv=pc=n&n=s985ht764dkjt3cj6]133|100[/hv] I think we all know the answer by now. So many players pre-empt at the three level with 6m that a raise to 4♣ with such a balanced hand is just poker (as someone else said). And even if partner's pre-empts are with 7m guaranteed, it is still not a worth a hike to the four level. The one thing other forum members have not said here is that it is sometimes good to let the opps. guess what to do next after a pre-empt as opposed to forcing them into a higher-level decision which might turn out better. The higher-level decision can be worse also, obviously, so it is a two-edged sword whether to raise a pre-empt as interference. But this hand does not qualify imo.

It is strange how the bot cannot see a red suit game with 6/5 shape opposite a strong no-trump opener, especially after a opponent uses Cappelletti. Opener would have to be minimum and with the wrong cards for game not to be a reasonable contract. I would expect most intermediate+ players to be in game here, even with the opps intervening.

Think it is time you became a little more aggressive whatever the field :) That figure looks out of the ballpark imo, apologies for saying this, AL78. But there again it is a partnership game so maybe your partner is not helping your stats.

The hands are not fitting well, but that ♥Q is a key card. I am trying to work out what shape partner is, and what cards he has for the reverse. 4♦ just looks right and forcing. No need to rush as you know you are in the slam zone. The problem is if partner now bids 4♥. After that I know we could miss a grand, but I would just bid 5NT pick a slam and settle for the small slam. There are many, many hands, where you will have 13 tricks off the top, but finding out about the quality of the ♥ suit is not possible to do imo. Partner could be reversing with ♠AKQx ♥AKxxxx ♦x ♣xx where even a small slam may not make. But on the combined point count alone I would want to be in a small slam as there are squeeze possibilities.

Your need to find a new partner! How can the ♦K be anything else than a switch to a ♥ imo.

I was going to say the same. It is one for a simulation to work out whether a 6♦ slam is a good percentage contract with the cards given. Assuming a break of 3-2 (68%) and a trump lead. The hand looks a 50/50 slam, entirely depending on a finesse and the other suits breaking favorably. It is the sort of hand you would gamble on being in a small slam playing IMPs when you need you are losing a match and need to catch up quickly.

I will also honest: I doubt except with specific partnership bidding and agreements (like pescetom and Cyberyeti) that I would end up in 6♦ here. That the hands do not fit that well, and with 16 points + 11 points = 27 points 3NT looks more than enough. Small slams usually require more points (including distribution). Not surprisingly the Kaplan & Rubens evaluator assesses the hands at 19.55 and 14.35 and that is good enough to be in a small slam with a fit, so if a partnership can get there that is good.

NO. One opp has passed and you have the top suit ♠, a opening hand and a easy rebid. Open 1 ♠

That I agree with, but how do you know partner has this hand and not another hand with 2 card ♠ support and ♥AQJxxxx or similar? Do you only raise a 3♠ bid here with only 3 card support, not 2 card support? That is why I did not mention in my original post bidding 3♠ here. The other small consideration is if West has any sort of minor suit-oriented hand, it makes it easier for him to enter the auction a level lower, and for the opps. to find their possible 10 card ♦ fit for a probable sacrifice of -300 depending how the cards lie.

That does not help! But to answer your question I would just raise to 4♥ and not explore slam. If your partner has made a genuine pre-empt, then his hand should not be ♥AQxxxxx + ♦A or ♥KQJxxxx + ♦A, so I play the combined hands for two losers. There are a combination of hands where slam may be possible. But most of those are so close to a one level opening bid, that the only advice I can give is to tell partner to only open with a pre-empt when he has a pre-empt. That is 7 cards and 5-9 points at the three level. Edit: A new suit bid after a pre-empt is forcing and shows a good 6+ card suit. As for exploring slam after a pre-empt, that is difficult as obviously bidding space has been taken away. There is a convention where 3NT is not to play, especially over a major three-level pre-empt, but is a Ogust-type bid asking about the quality/controls of the pre-empt suit, and there is a similar bid of 4♣ over 3M that asks also I think.

I agree with all this. Maybe I should have clarified that I only looked at this quickly (before going to a diner) and put my two cents worth down for what it's worth. Next time better to give it more thought...

The next card I would play as South would be the ♣4. You have to try to sneak a trick quickly before the opps. have a count (even if they are weaker opps.)

I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here with this poor hand when the opps. are holding the ♠ suit so can outbid you without raising the level. A 3♥ bid just seems extreme and partner could be very confused whether to sacrifice or X the opps. if they end up in a ♠ contract at any level. I think X is enough here. The opps. will raise the ♠ suit that is a given, but I want to hear what partner says to X first when that happens. If he cannot bid further, then I do not want to be competing at the five level at red.

Yes, I agree, 3♥ looks like an underbid here. If you have not a 2NT rebid as forcing and unbalanced as some play - instead of 18-19 balanced, then there is always a 3NT rebid in this sequence which shows 6+ ♥ and balanced shape, and a slightly stronger hand than a 3♥ rebid, although usually it will only be bid with a stiff or doubleton in responder's suit ♠. So, I also agree that you are going to tell a untruth whatever you rebid on this hand. I admit I do not know what is best here. I personally would opt for a underbid of 3♥ here. It leaves a 4♥, 4♠ and 3NT contract all in the equation., although personally I would rather play 3NT from my hand not my partner's.