Another invite slam or not

[skjaeran]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sat94hj983dk4ck95]133|100|Scoring: IMP

(3♦) 3NT (p) ?[/hv]

 

Partner overcalls 3NT and you've got a decent hand. Do you make a move?

[ceeb]

yes, 4NT.

 

Even 18 point hands like Kxx, A10x, AJx, AQ10x give a shot, and pd may have much more or a long suit.

 

In view of my extra diamond stopper and prime cards 4NT is unlikely to be in danger (unless pd is truly threadbare -- is Qx, Kxx, A10x, AJ10xx possible?).

 

So I think it's close but worthwhile.

[rogerclee]

Even 18 point hands like Kxx, A10x, AJx, AQ10x make 6N a poor contract.

Passssssssssssssssssssss.

[han]

I pass, think this is fairly clear.

[ceeb]

Even 18 point hands like Kxx, A10x, AJx, AQ10x make 6N a poor contract.

How poor? 3♦ tricks are available unless LHO both has and won't lead ♦Qx. Then it's 60% to make 3 ♥ tricks, and finding either the ♣J or a black suit squeeze (whichever seems best late in the day) adds to 12 tricks.

[655321]

Pass, not close.

[jdonn]

I think it's a very close decision. I hate to hang partner but I think this is just about worth 4NT. My second diamond stopper and partner's knowledge of the opposing hands let me hope this will make even if he has some 15 or 16 count, and needless to say we COULD have slam as passers would also admit.

 

Any answer that says this is not at least close is just answering by instinct IMO.

[655321]

I think it's a very close decision. I hate to hang partner but I think this is just about worth 4NT. My second diamond stopper and partner's knowledge of the opposing hands let me hope this will make even if he has some 15 or 16 count, and needless to say we COULD have slam as passers would also admit.

 

Any answer that says this is not at least close is just answering by instinct IMO.

Fair enough.

As you say, we certainly could have slam.

After partner overcalls a preempt with 3NT, my rule of thumb for boring balanced hands is that 13HCP is close, and 14HCP is probably an invite, hence a balanced 11 is not close.

[Cascade]

4NT

 

Edit

==

 

Actually I am having second thoughts that maybe 4NT is too much.

 

I still wouldnt describe it as hanging partner though.

 

3NT is such a horrid bid (not that there is any alternative usually) but the wide range will often make our slam bidding near impossible.

 

In my second thought I am not so worried about going down in 4NT as going down in 6NT when partner accepts.

[Cascade]

4NT is only wrong if you can make exactly 9 tricks.

 

On the other hand there is a huge upside when you have a slam.

 

I wouldn't call this "hanging partner".

[mikeh]

4NT is only wrong if you can make exactly 9 tricks.

 

On the other hand there is a huge upside when you have a slam.

 

I wouldn't call this "hanging partner".

Not true.. not even close to being true.

 

4N invites slam.. the whole point is to encourage partner to bid again. ANd the main risk of 4N is NOT that 9 tricks are the limit... that is extraordinarily unlikely. No, the main risk is that partner bids an unmakeable slam.

 

I am with Josh in thinking that this is close, but I pass.

 

BTW, I think most expert pairs have methods here: mine uses 4♣ to ask, and this allows partner to show a one-suiter (3N on a source of tricks) or to divide his hand into two hcp ranges, so that I will know more about his hand. However, I wouldn't use that method here because even hearing he has a balanced max wouldn't be (quite) enough for me to bid slam.

 

This is VERY close. Give me the ♠J instead of the 10, and I think I'd move. Not sure if the club 10 instead of the 9 would make a difference :P

[Halo]

Since we think partner has no running suit (unless hearts), we should move on this, close though it is.

[Finch]

I would pass, and I don't think this is particularly close.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

 

Partner will have something between

16-20, we have 11, i.e. not enough

for slam, 6NT.

 

If you play asystem, which allows to

look for 4-4 in the mayors, I may

reconsider, but I wont have lots of

room to make some form of quantitaive

noise.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Cascade]

4NT is only wrong if you can make exactly 9 tricks.

 

On the other hand there is a huge upside when you have a slam.

 

I wouldn't call this "hanging partner".

Not true.. not even close to being true.

Yes I corrected above.

 

I did not consider properly what I would expect partner will bid on with. When I reflected I thought he would bid slam too often on insufficient values.

[whereagles]

Agree it's close and pass as well. I got a king above my expectancy, and don't think that's enough for an invite, eventhough 3NT can be quite wide-ranging.

[Guest Jlall]

Agree with pass and its not close. We get to bad slams/go down in 4N too much to be bidding here. We need a mountain to make 6, and my partners have some kind of 15 count where 3N is touch and go way too often.

[Cascade]

Agree with pass and its not close. We get to bad slams/go down in 4N too much to be bidding here. We need a mountain to make 6, and my partners have some kind of 15 count where 3N is touch and go way too often.

Maybe they bid 3NT too often.

[gnasher]

my partners have some kind of 15 count where 3N is touch and go way too often.

Maybe they bid 3NT too often.

This ordinary-looking balanced 11-count is a perfect example of why partner *should* bid 3NT with a balanced 15-count. How else are we supposed to get there?

[Cascade]

my partners have some kind of 15 count where 3N is touch and go way too often.

Maybe they bid 3NT too often.

This ordinary-looking balanced 11-count is a perfect example of why partner *should* bid 3NT with a balanced 15-count. How else are we supposed to get there?

I don't think that is enough of a reason.

 

Bidding 3NT on an ordinary 15 count also gets you to game with ordinary 15 opposite bad six etc.

 

I'm not saying it is wrong on any particular hand just that it is not clear nor trivial where the boundary is between 3NT and pass.

[kenrexford]

I don't think that the overall strength is necessarily wrong -- it is the location of that strength.

 

For instance, I might consider 4NT with the slight tweak of this hand:

 

♠A1094 ♥KJ98 ♦42 ♣K95

 

A lot more to work with. I still think that 4NT is a bit aggressive, but not as wild.

 

If I move, I like 4♣ as "optional baron," meaning to resign 4NT with a mkinimum or bid 4-card suits up the line with values, cuebidding with clubs.

[Edmunte1]

I don't like 4NT, too often it will drive us to bad slams. The main problems here are that usually hearts values are badly placed, and ♦K-A are points in a short suit and will produce usually only 2 tricks. We can make slam in 2 cases:

- partner has a maximum hand with a source of tricks

- partner has maximum, with a major suit fit and trumps lie well

 

I don't know your methods over 3NT overcall, but this slam seems a bridge too far for me.

[Guest Jlall]

Agree with pass and its not close. We get to bad slams/go down in 4N too much to be bidding here. We need a mountain to make 6, and my partners have some kind of 15 count where 3N is touch and go way too often.

Maybe they bid 3NT too often.

Maybe they understand they have to bid 3N with a wide range of hands because otherwise they will miss a lot of games, and that they do not need the usual 25 HCP for game that they usually do since they will play it well + shut out the preemptor etc.

[skjaeran]

I agree with the popular vote here - this is a pass.

 

At the table my partner after some though raised to 4NT (last time I overcalled I had 19 and we missed a slam).

 

Holding Kxx A Ax AT8xxxx I had an easy 6♣ now. +1370

[whereagles]

I think Ron (the_hog) has a nice gadget over (3x)-3NT that lets you know what 3NT was based on. That would work nice here.