Fluffy Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 [hv=d=n&v=n&s=sahaqjd109752c8754]133|100|Scoring: MP- N - E -.- S - W1NT-2♥*-???[/hv] 2♥*: Spades Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 3N. It could work poorly, and we could belong in hearts or even diamonds, but I don't play diamonds in MP B) lol. Stiff ace is always hard to evaluate. This also puts some pressure on LHO, he may try 4S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 We are vul, and they rate to have at least an 8 card spade fit (assumption partner is less likely to have 5♠). We are going to game, I am not going to show this ratty ♦ as a real suit, and even if we have a 4-3 ♥ fit, there is no quarantee that plays better than 3NT. The field rates to be in 3NT and so shall we. We just plan on playing it better. Besides, if spade was natural lead before I bid 3NT, it still is... and there mgiht not be an overcall at the other tables. So partner has as much if not more info that other declarer's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr1303 Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 Do I play Lebensohl here? If so, can I show a hand with no spade stopper (I'm not too happy on running 9 off the top on a spade lead if partner has nowt in the suit). Otherwise I'll try either double or 3NT, perhaps 3NT without much conviction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 I'll just bid 3♦. Pard shouldn't let me play in diamonds at MP :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 3NT. If Hamman's Rule is good enough for Hamman, it's certainly good enoughfor a player like me. It saves energy, and is right at least as often as it is wrong. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 I like 3♦. Strangely it may be more likely to be right to play in diamonds on this hand than one with a better diamond suit. If my AQJ were in diamonds, the hands could be something like: AxxxAQJTxxxxx xxxAKxxKxxAJx Partner would never figure out to bid 3NT without a spade stopper, but 3NT is cold and 5♦ will usually fail. On the actual hands your chances at 3NT are poor if partner can't contribute a second spade stopper: AAQJTxxxxxxxx xxxKxxxKQxAKx 5♦ is not great but certainly has play whereas 3NT will almost certainly fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted February 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 I think Adam made the key point, it doesn't matter if we have the honnors in ♠s or ♦s, what is actually bad is the ♥ honnors when playing NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted February 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2007 [hv=d=n&v=b&n=s10xhk109xdakqxcaxx&w=sjxxxhxxxxxdxcq10x&e=skq1098xhxdjxxckjx&s=sahaqjd109xxxcxxxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Field competes less against 3NT than against suit games, here 3NT was the only contract that gave more than 50% of the MP. (even 6 spades is better than 5NT played by opps....) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 24, 2007 Report Share Posted February 24, 2007 Hmm? 6♠-X -3 (-800)5NT= (-660) Oh wait, I see the vul is N/S at the top of the thread, so I guess that's what it really was. Still, it's quite remarkable how averse people are in general to sacrificing over NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.