Response to partner's 3NT overcall

[Finch]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s94hakj942d983cj7]133|100|Scoring: IMP

3♣ 3NT Pass ?[/hv]

 

Nice simple common problem.

Are you better in 3NT or 4H?

Should you make a slam try?

 

(Note that one consequence of your methods is that you will be declarer if you make a slam try, partner will be declarer if you sign off in 4H).

[whereagles]

I'll try that sign-off gadget. Glad I'm playing that :rolleyes:

[Cascade]

You could improvise:

 

4♦ forcing 4♥

 

then raise to 5♥

 

or does this mean something else.

[Echognome]

You could improvise:

 

4♦ forcing 4♥

 

then raise to 5♥

 

or does this mean something else.

I like Wayne's idea here.

 

I know it wasn't asked but our methods here are:

 

(3x) - 3NT - (P) - ?

 

4♣ Why did you bid 3NT?

---4Y I had this long running suit (Note may be a major and may have to be bid at 5 level)

---4NT I had balanced min (note that min here is around 16-19)

---Cue I had a balanced monster with no other good bid

4♦-4♠ Transfers (may be 2-up, depending on what 3x is)

4NT Simple Blackwood

 

I would be curious to know what others play.

[whereagles]

You could improvise:

 

4♦ forcing 4♥

 

then raise to 5♥

 

or does this mean something else.

That might be a heart slam try with clubs wide open.

[Finch]

You could improvise:

 

4♦ forcing 4♥

 

then raise to 5♥

 

or does this mean something else.

Sounds like a stronger slam try, with a desire that partner play the hand (the 4H mild slam try thing can be passed).

[Cascade]

You could improvise:

 

4♦ forcing 4♥

 

then raise to 5♥

 

or does this mean something else.

Sounds like a stronger slam try, with a desire that partner play the hand (the 4H mild slam try thing can be passed).

Maybe but this hand is screaming for partner to be the declarer.

[jdonn]

You could improvise:

 

4♦ forcing 4♥

 

then raise to 5♥

 

or does this mean something else.

Isn't this hand not nearly good enough for that, whatever it means? 3NT is often based on nothing more than the equivalent of a 1NT opening bid. I certainly wouldn't want to go to the five level opposite that.

[mikeh]

This problem would be tough enough if the only issue were '♥'s' or notrump.

 

But it is complicated by the issue of 'if ♥'s, how high?'

 

If the only issue were denomination, I think the ♥ suit is good and long enough to warrant getting partner on play in 4♥.

 

But I am going to stay in 3N and not try for ♥.

 

I think that 3N will be safer than 4♥: imagine partner with a long running ♦ suit and a stiff ♥. While 4♥ will usually prevail even then, it may fail on a bad day.

 

I see very little risk of 3N failing: if he has a long ♦ suit, my length protects against bad splits, and if he is balanced, my ♥ suit will almost surely be a source of tricks. I can construct hands on which a ♣ lead and a ♠ switch defeats 3N, but they are rare, and on some of them, both games fail.

 

I make this choice because I see too much risk in trying for slam with this hand... clearly, if I were trying for slam, I'd have to emphasize the ♥ suit.

 

BTW, I think this auction is easier than [3♠] 3N p ?, since partner, with a big notrump hand, has room to double then bid 3N over a 3M response, if he has a balanced hand with tolerance for both majors, while over a ♠ opening, he has no expectation of reaching 3N unless he bids it, so on the posted hand, his range tends to be more constrained than after 3♠... this is not a completely safe inference to draw, but it does help tilt the decision towards conservatism...or am I merely indulging my worst bidding characteristic... seeking a justification for the glass is half empty approach?

[HeartA]

You could improvise:

 

4♦ forcing 4♥

 

then raise to 5♥

 

or does this mean something else.

ditto.

[mike777]

Pass whatever it means.

[mcphee]

I also pass 3NT. Although possible slam comes in I am not willing to punish partner for bidding 3NT over a 3 level pre-empt. As Mike states maybe partner bid 3NT on his D suit. To me the good news is I know we rate to make 3N and I can contribute, but contribute enough to make 12 tricks is another matter.

 

One thing I try to keep in mind in these postions is partner may have bid 3N in fear of my hand passing a 3 level overcall when I need very little to produce 9 tricks but can't make any good forward going bid. For example lets say we had Qxxx Kxxxx xx xx and partner had overcalled 3D, would you bid?

 

I would expect partner to bid 3N with something like Jx Ax AKQxxxx Ax, I sure hope they would. Why should I take a push any higher? And some days they H and a similar hand type. Bidding on with the hand given is whishful hopes of finding the great fit. Not a risk worth taking I don't believe.

[Chamaco]

I passed too, for the reasons outlined by Mikeh and McPhee.

My guess is that most times slam will be an illusion, and 3NT should be rarely off here.

 

I would be more worried of my choice if we were playing MP.

[Finch]

I thought it was very close between passing and moving. 3NT may be in trouble on a spade lead, while 4H may be trouble on the basis of having four losers. I pulled to 4H via 4D, which didn't work out very well.

 

I added the 'slam try' option in because it will get you to play in 4H your way up, which makes. I don't think it's the percentage action, but you end up 720 points better off so I shouldn't complain about the result.

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sakxhxxdaq10xck8xx&w=sxh109xxdjxcaq109xx&e=sqj10xxxxhqdkxxxcx&s=sxxhakjxxxd98xcjx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

3NT makes on a spade lead as long as you play it carefully (and play West for the ace of clubs).

 

4H goes off on the singleton club lead.

4H your way up makes on the singleton spade lead.

 

At virtually every other table the auction was P 1D 3S 4H all pass.

[mike777]

Interesting that making a weak 3 level preemptive bid with an outside K hurt on this hand, not sure if there is a lesson in that or not.

[Free]

Interesting that making a weak 3 level preemptive bid with an outside K hurt on this hand, not sure if there is a lesson in that or not.

What outside K??? West only has ♣, and perhaps some will whine about the 4-card ♥... :rolleyes:

[mike777]

Interesting that making a weak 3 level preemptive bid with an outside K hurt on this hand, not sure if there is a lesson in that or not.

What outside K??? West only has ♣, and perhaps some will whine about the 4-card ♥... :rolleyes:

East hand!

[Free]

Interesting that making a weak 3 level preemptive bid with an outside K hurt on this hand, not sure if there is a lesson in that or not.

What outside K??? West only has ♣, and perhaps some will whine about the 4-card ♥... :)

East hand!

Hello! West is dealer, 3♣ is the first bid, and West has ♣... :rolleyes:

[mike777]

"At virtually every other table the auction was P 1D 3S 4H all pass. "

 

 

I wonder if bidding Preemptive 3 bids (3s) with an outside K is a lesson hand or not?

[hatchett]

"At virtually every other table the auction was P 1D 3S 4H all pass. "

 

 

I wonder if bidding Preemptive 3 bids (3s) with an outside K is a lesson hand or not?

 

I don't follow your point are you suggesting you should never pre-empt with a side K? In any case opposite a passed partner who cares?

[whereagles]

If you never preempt with a side king or ace, you sure are going to pass a lot...

[Chamaco]

I don't follow your point are you suggesting you should never pre-empt with a side K? In any case opposite a passed partner who cares?

Preempting with wasted side values is dangerous even if pard is a passed hand.

 

The danger is not so much that pard will exect a different hand type, of course a passed hand pd won't expect anything.

 

The real danger is that having wasted values means that these values would be useful for our side if we let opps buy the hand and we end defending, therefore it is likely that opps do not have a makeable game and/or that even if they do have a makeable game, they'll get richer anyways by doubling us.

 

Basically, the fact we have wasted values increase the chances we are going for a phantom sac.

 

================

 

Having said that, every choice involves some risks, and, at favourable vulnerability, 3rd seat, I think it is fair to preempt with this hand.

 

================

 

A final note: if I had to choose, I would not be really worried of the side K, but rather of

a. the stiff H Q,

and

b. the fact we have a side 4 bagger (this often means we have more losers we cannot ruff)

[Cascade]

The real danger is that having wasted values means that these values would be useful for our side if we let opps buy the hand and we end defending, therefore it is likely that opps do not have a makeable game and/or that even if they do have a makeable game, they'll get richer anyways by doubling us.

 

Basically, the fact we have wasted values increase the chances we are going for a phantom sac.

This can be a good thing.

 

Sometimes the opponents will bid over our pre-empt if they can't make anything then that will be good for us.

 

I like to pre-empt with or without the side cards. The opponents will not know what I have and therefore will more often make the wrong decisions.

 

Of course sometimes it is partner who goes wrong but there are two opponents and only one partner.

[Chamaco]

This can be a good thing.

.....

 

Of course sometimes it is partner who goes wrong but there are two opponents and only one partner.

LOL,

I guess my next line in profile will be:

 

"The good thing about bridge is that we have 2 opponents and only one partner" :)

[cherdano]

"At virtually every other table the auction was P 1D 3S 4H all pass. "

 

 

I wonder if bidding Preemptive 3 bids (3s) with an outside K is a lesson hand or not?

No, it is not.

 

Arend

 

P.S.: The lesson you are searching for is that x T9xx Jx AQT9xx at IMPS, favourable, is a 3♣ opening bid.