Nine Trumps

[neilkaz]

I have to pass this flat hand and hope 3♦ goes off. I expect 3♠ will be a clear underdog and that sometimes no one can take 9 tricks.

[keylime]

And to think I have been known to quip "Pard, the dummy if it was a food would be creme brûlée..."

 

God, the lack of coffee showed.

[Phil]

And to think I have been known to quip "Pard, the dummy if it was a food would be creme brûlée..."

 

God, the lack of coffee showed.

More like, "if dummy were a horse, I'd shoot it".

[peachy]

I think partner has 5 spades (in my weak NT partnerships, five of major is not uncommon if the hand falls in the NT range, not sure if that is true for OP) and some sort of max to afford 2S there. I'm bidding 3S. If he had both majors and short diamonds, he would have doubled instead of bid spades.

[Fluffy]

I feel a bit badly for not ever raising partner with 4 trumps, when we could be having game our side, but with all those 3-3 holdings it will be more like a miracle.

[gnasher]

I'm surprised that there's any discussion of partner's likely shape. He's obviously 5=3=2=3.

 

It's inconceivable that opener would bid 2♠ here on a four-card suit. With four spades and two diamonds, he'd make a takeout double. With four spades and three diamonds, he'd pass. If we aren't playing takeout doubles by opener (why?), we've already decided that we don't want opener to be able to compete with only a four-card spade suit.

 

It's also very unlikely that opponents have reached 3♦ with only seven of them, eschewing an eight-card fit in hearts or clubs, especially when they have less than half the high card strength and have poor intermediates in their trump suit.

 

I'm also surprised at the number of people who seem to rely on the "Law" of Total Tricks, whether adjusted or not. You're facing a hand that is well-defined in both strength and shape, so why not construct a few (sensible) examples and think about where you want to play? If you do that, you'll rapidly conclude that you're closer to double than to 3♠.

[Finch]

On top of this, it is practically a puzzle to even construct layouts where both 3♠ and 3♦ are making.

That's a challenge if ever I saw one

 

[hv=n=sakqxxhq82d42cj10x&w=sjxxhkjxdaxc98xxx&e=sxhaxxxdkqjxxxcqx&s=s108xxh1096d1095cak6]399|300|[/hv]

 

OK it requires

- partner to open 1NT on all 5332s in range

- RHO not to be playing any form of conventional defence to 1NT

- us not to lead or switch to a heart against 3D

 

and it still wasn't easy

[OleBerg]

On top of this, it is practically a puzzle to even construct layouts where both 3♠ and 3♦ are making.

That's a challenge if ever I saw one

 

[hv=n=sakqxxhq82d42cj10x&w=sjxxhkjxdaxc98xxx&e=sxhaxxxdkqjxxxcqx&s=s108xxh1096d1095cak6]399|300|[/hv]

 

OK it requires

- partner to open 1NT on all 5332s in range

- RHO not to be playing any form of conventional defence to 1NT

- us not to lead or switch to a heart against 3D

 

and it still wasn't easy

[hv=n=sakqxxhq82d42cj10x&w=sjxxhkjxdaxc98xxx&e=sxhaxxxdkqjxxxcqx&s=s108xxh1096d1095cak6]399|300|[/hv]

 

19 total tricks.

 

(Okay, I've been convinced pass is the right bid, but shh, please don't tell anybody.)

[Cascade]

I'm surprised that there's any discussion of partner's likely shape. He's obviously 5=3=2=3.

This wasn't my regular partnership so I wasn't 100% sure about style but was fairly confident he had five spades (hence the thread title). In my regular partnership 5=2=2=4 is also a reasonably likely distribution.