Which game?

[Echognome]

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

(P) - 1NT* - (2♥) - 3♦**;

(P) - 3NT - (P) - ?[/hv]

*15-17

**5+♠, INV+

 

Have we landed?

[kenrexford]

What else?

[whereagles]

Do you have a method to put opener declaring 4♠? If you do, you must pass 3NT to be consistent :)

 

(if you see what I mean...)

[Phil]

I would have bid 4♥ (or 4♦ with you) over 2♥.

 

While sitting with 6 spade tricks looks appealing, opposite a max NT, I think we have more 'outs' in 4♠. Its IMPs and I want the safest game.

 

So I bid 4♠.

 

I would pass 3N at MPs.

[gnasher]

So I bid 4♠.

 

I would pass 3N at MPs.

This is the wrong way around. If each contract makes the same number of tricks, or 3NT makes more, 3NT is better at either form of scoring. If 4♠ scores one more trick than 3NT, you want to be in 4♠ at matchpoints, but at IMPs it doesn't matter which one you're in, because either both games make or both go down.

 

Thus with a long major you should tend to play in 3NT more at IMPs than at matchpoints.

 

The only time you might apply the opposite logic is when you're so strong that four of a major is guaranteed, but 3NT might fail because of an unstopped suit. I don't think this hand qualifies.

 

This is explained rather better by Kit Woolsey in Matchpoints, in my opinion one of the best bridge books ever written.

[JLOL]

agree with ken

[mikeh]

If we had texas available, then even thinking about bidding here is an error... the time to think about what to do over 3N was the previous round.

 

With texas available, we can no longer safely get partner to declare 4♠, since 4♥ cannot logically be a mere retransfer.... it is a cue bid showing slam interest in spades/notrump... otherwise why didn't I employ texas last time?

 

And the thought of bidding 4♠ makes me laugh. xx KJx KQxx AKJx, as an example... two rounds of hearts, a diamond cash and a 3rd heart.... not to mention that this also is a slam try, without a heart control.

[Phil]

So I bid 4♠.

 

I would pass 3N at MPs.

 

 

Thus with a long major you should tend to play in 3NT more at IMPs than at matchpoints.

 

The only time you might apply the opposite logic is when you're so strong that four of a major is guaranteed, but 3NT might fail because of an unstopped suit. I don't think this hand qualifies.

 

This is explained rather better by Kit Woolsey in Matchpoints, in my opinion one of the best bridge books ever written.

Then by this reasoning we should never bid 4♠ once partner shows a heart stopper?

 

My thinking is there is a subset of hands where 4♠ (from pard's side) is still excellent when spades aren't breaking:

 

xx, AQx, KQxx, KQxx

 

I didn't consider the play problem if we are declaring 4♠, but on reconsideration 4♠only makes sense if we have a retransfer available.

 

This is the wrong way around.  If each contract makes the same number of tricks, or 3NT makes more, 3NT is better at either form of scoring.  If 4♠ scores one more trick than 3NT, you want to be in 4♠ at matchpoints, but at IMPs it doesn't matter which one you're in, because either both games make or both go down.

 

When we have a long suit that we hope to run, when 3N is going down, it goes down a lot, but 4♠ is still there, which I suppose also bolsters your argument that 4♠ is also good at matchpoints.

 

As an aside, I particularly didn't like Matchpoints. I think a lot of Woolsey's ideas about 'double or sac' have largely been discarded by the bridge community.

[gnasher]

Then by this reasoning we should never bid 4♠ once partner shows a heart stopper?

No, my point was only that if you pass 3NT at matchpoints you should also pass it at IMPs, and if you bid 4♠ at IMPs you should also bid it at matchpoints. There are some hands of this type where you should pass 3NT at IMPs and bid 4♠ at matchpoints, but not the other way around.

[Echognome]

Now the wrinkle.

 

Your partner does not alert your 3♦ call. How does that affect what you choose?

 

(as it happened, I thought 4♠ would be suggested by the failure to alert and passed 3NT, which happened to be a success on this hand.)

[kenrexford]

Now the wrinkle.

 

Your partner does not alert your 3♦ call. How does that affect what you choose?

 

(as it happened, I thought 4♠ would be suggested by the failure to alert and passed 3NT, which happened to be a success on this hand.)

The non-alert forces you to bid right.

[mikeh]

Now the wrinkle.

 

Your partner does not alert your 3♦ call. How does that affect what you choose?

 

(as it happened, I thought 4♠ would be suggested by the failure to alert and passed 3NT, which happened to be a success on this hand.)

I agree with your action...

 

But even if a different player in your seat was inclined, with or without malicious intent, to take advantage of the non-alert, it would be extremely dangerous to do so: 4♠ might be taken as showing a diamond-spade 2-suiter B)

 

And 4♥, if technically available as a retransfer, would perhaps be seen as a slam move in diamonds.

 

it's always nice when the ethical action is the same as the pragmatic action :D

[cherdanno]

The UI suggests that 4♠ would be misunderstood (or whatever the re-transfer is). Doesn't this suggest passing, and thus makes it unethical?

(Playing behind screens, this partnership might have a huge accident if responder bids the LA of 4♠ now. It doesn't seem fair if the failure to alert prevents that.)

[gnasher]

I think it depends on who has got the system wrong.

 

If partner has forgotten a recent agreement, a 4♠ bid is likely to remind him of it, so the UI suggests bidding 4♠. If I was wrong, the UI suggests passing, as 4♠ will be interpreted as a slam try for diamonds.

[mikeh]

The UI suggests that 4♠ would be misunderstood (or whatever the re-transfer is). Doesn't this suggest passing, and thus makes it unethical?

(Playing behind screens, this partnership might have a huge accident if responder bids the LA of 4♠ now. It doesn't seem fair if the failure to alert prevents that.)

I don't think so... while I think that one can be ethically constrained to choose an action that would be costly, one is not constrained to choose a bad bridge action... an action that is going to be a misdescription of the hand HAD he alerted.

 

Thus, had partner alerted and bid 3N, wouldn't some form of spade rebid now misdescribe the hand? Wouldn't 4♠, for example, be a slam try? Surely it would, if one plays texas transfer? If so, then bidding 4♠ is taking action that you would never dream of taking absent the non-alert.

 

The same is true of 4♥.... even if this is a retransfer, which it could be... long spades, only invitational values, hence no texas initially (one could argue that 4♠ is that hand and 3♦ then 4♥ retransfer is the slam hand... but few pairs will have that detailed a discussion)... this hand would surely never take such action over 3N after an alert.

 

This all takes me back to my initial post in which I suggested that any thinking about what to do over 3N by opener should have been done before bidding 3♦. In that case, responder's duty is to make the call he planned on making, when anticipating an alert followed by 3N... and surely that must have been a pass?