sfi

It was a seven card suit with good intermediates. I can see people being liberal about the way they count the hand. It's the lack of disclosure I have an issue with though. Opponents really should be informed that distribution can make up for lack of points.

I typically propose 2NT as the good raise of partner's major if we don't have a cue bid available. That way we don't suffer disasters by not being able to find our spade fit on these auctions (it does happen).

When using the word 'points', some people talk about total points which others talk about high card points, as I found out after a reasonable amount of miscommunication early in one partnership. This might account for the differing understandings and why the opposition did not find this surprising. However, we all have an obligation to be clear when describing a bid, and this situation seems to fall short of that obligation. First I would find out if this bid is within their expectations or whether it was a deviation. From the description it sounds like it fell in their range for the bid, so I would view it as a misleading explanation and have a word with them about describing it more accurately. I would also consider adjusting the score due to misinformation.

As others have said, scoring and vulnerability matter, as does partnership style. However, my inclination is: 1) 3H 2) 1H 3) Pass The only one I feel strongly about is that #2 is not a 3H bid.

Maybe the latest version of the laws is changing the game more than I thought ...

One special agreement is that you don't get to double partner's opening. That might change your choices. Anything but 2D just seems odd.

Rmnka447 is spot on with the analysis of what is going on and what the bids mean. I think I would have doubled at the table to encourage partner to do something without reasonable spade values and with a bit of shape, but nothing besides pass or double would have occurred to me. One of the big reasons 4NT is so bad is that you have defence and there is some chance that no game makes. You could simply be cashing 4 tricks in the red suits with no contribution from partner, and committing to declare at the 5 level on this auction just can't be a percentage action. Double achieves much the same result with the bonus of letting partner choose to defend on a suitable hand (where we get a positive) or one where bidding is going to be dreadful (where our possible negative score is less). Of course, there is the real chance of a redouble on this hand, but you still have more options than a 4NT bid.

Not sure about that. I don't remember being this amused from PhilG, but we're well past the point of no return from the nonsense of watching him be furiously upset that nobody is arguing his chosen "point".

What johnu said. You seem to be captivated by the idea that hands with 9 card suits are rarer than 4-4-3-2 hands, for example. Nobody is commenting on that because it is both obvious and irrelevant to the initial question. The thing is, you already have this 9 card suit - the chance of you picking up one on this particular deal is 100%. The question is not how lucky you are to pick up one because it is really rare. The question is what you do with it.

10%? 20%? You might want to check your work. Let's try some of this math stuff, shall we? It is simple enough. There are four cards outstanding - the ace, king, queen, and jack. They can be in any of the other three hands and we want to know the chances that all four are in the same hand. Start by putting the ace in one hand. There is a 100% chance it is in one hand (85% if the rabbit is at the table, but we'll ignore that possibility). That's one card located. Now the king. There are 38 unknown places in the three hands, but only 12 in the same hand as the ace. So the chance one player (any of the three) holds both the ace and the king is exactly 12/38. Assume those two are in the same hand (if not, we're done because we can't reach the outcome we want). How about the queen? Well, there are 37 unknown places left and only 11 in the hand holding the ace and the king. So the chance one person holds the AKQ is (12/38)*(11/37). Finally, the jack. Following the same logic (sorry JonnyQuest, the word just snuck in), there are 10 places in the hand holding the other honours out of 36 total. Which gives us the total chance of any player holding all four honours (12/38)*(11/37)*(10/36). Let's fire up our trusty calculator and see what that gives us... 2.6% The 9 card suit in our hand doesn't affect this at all. Of course, RHO is unlikely to hold all four since they passed initially, but that's the only thing that does affect the odds here. Part of the time it is partner who holds the four honours, which isn't something we fear either.

No - you should have paid attention to the rest of Vampyr's comment. To restate: She is not talking about how improbable holding a 9 card suit is - you already hold that so the probability at this point is 1. She is commenting about your assertion that you should expect strange distributions simply because you have a 9 card suit. To provide just one quote of yours: This is simply wrong - math still works. You still only have a 2.6% chance (assuming my back of the envelope calculation is correct) that the rest of the suit is 4-0-0 around the table, so worrying overly about it is just one reason your "magic" hand is not a real concern. Similarly, there is no real reason to assume everyone else holds an 8 card suit just because you do. The odds increase, but not by that much.

Fair enough.

And that shows you don't understand how bidding works. Nobody with any experience would jump to 4H after a 3D opening - it's that simple. Opening 4H is different, which is clear to almost everyone here.

Because, well, math.

Sorry, I forgot we were still in fantasyland. Back in the real world North makes 3NT if allowed to play it there.

LOL, you're missing the point. You suggest a ridiculous overcall of 4H, which nobody else even mentioned and nobody else has supported after you did. Even despite how dreadful a bid that is, it turns out to only barely lose out to the game they were going to find. And partner can still pull to 4S over the double. But that's not the original question. It may be worth looking back at your beginner books to find out that an overcall is different from an opening bid. Different considerations apply, and different decisions get made. This thread (until you came up with a random diversion) is about an opening 4H bid.

Too true. Even the random introduction of the auction (3D) - 4H - (X) on the "magic" hand isn't that big a triumph for the pass argument. That only goes down 500 against the cold 3NT they were going to reach, and if hearts break anything but 4-0-0 around the table it is a good sacrifice. But the posts have large walls of text, underlining, capitals, italics, and bold type. So they must be right.

Nice carefully constructed hand. However, if you pass the opponents are definitely finding 5C on the auction (2C) - 4S and South doesn't have much reason to raise to slam. Nor will E-W find a 5S bid. If North bids 5C over a 4H opening, South may like their heart void opposite a couple of small hearts, and raise to 6C. Oops. You will notice that in neither auction does E-W get to play at the four level, so the fact that 4S makes is a mirage. You can construct hands where opening 4H is a loser, but this isn't one of them. Your chance of a good score is (admittedly slightly) better if you open on this layout than if you pass.

It's easy after you open 4H. Partner asks for keycards, finds you don't have the club ace, and bids the slam.

Sometimes bridge is about logic and exchanging lots of information to achieve the best possible score on the hand, and sometimes it is a guessing game where both sides are at risk of making a mistake, no matter what action can take. Part of the skill is knowing which type of hand you are playing at the moment, and how to sway the odds in your favour once you have made that decision. If you pass now, you will have a lot more information that may help you to decide how many hearts to bid. Your partner will also know whether it is right to compete or double. Problem is, the opponents will gain those same advantages. So the first thing you need to decide is which type of hand it is. Only then can you work out whether you want to bid and how much. On the actual hand, if I bid 4H LHO is likely to have a real problem. They might get it right, they might not, and they might not have a good choice. But what I do know is that if they get it wrong partner will know to double. Sure, partner may play me for honours in my suit and we get to 5H when it's our hand. But they may not be able to double, or they might sacrifice over it, or we might just make when hearts are 1-1. If I pass, the opponents will work out where their fit is and each get a chance to express their opinion on whether they want to play game. So when I bid 4H we are way ahead in the guessing game, and I like those odds. I don't like our odds when I pass. Hence 4H it is.

I'm not resistant to your having this option, and if you think I am you may want to reread my original post. What I was against is the proposal to force dummy to be silent. I do think how you handle it is anti-social and I pointed that out. But I don't really care what you do since I'm not going to be playing at the same table as you anyway.

There are many times when dummy will want to say things, including 'brb', 'one more hand for me', and 'thanks for the game all'. Stopping that will lead to a rather less friendly playing environment. And that doesn't even include playing with friends, when the table might be talking about anything and everything. I'm ambivalent about whether dummy can see the defenders' cards since I don't play at random tables, although Fred's points seem very well thought out. But your "solution" of spending a minute every four hands (on average) to review what happened on the previous one seems much more disruptive. How about reviewing it next time you are dummy or when it's not your turn to bid or play? Or simply not worrying about it?

That may depend on jurisdiction. In Australia, for example, South's actions do not constitute a bid.

Spot on (although you meant 4Sxx). I have a hard time constructing a hand where South's 3D bid is consistent with the E-W bidding, so North suspects something is odd. But it could easily be E-W in trouble (maybe 3S was meant as a stopper ask for 3NT or similar) and the only reason North knows who stuffed up is the UI. North's claim about never passing out the redoubled contract is farfetched, to say the least. A PP certainly seems in order. Not sure what argument could be made for the redouble being wild or gambling. It seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'd rule 4Sxx +2, given their failure to cash the aces on the actual hand. Let them argue about the second overtrick in committee if they like.

The 1S bid was an overcall, not an opening bid.