U r so ugly

[Flameous]

Pass stands out, especially at MP. I'd like to bid 3♠ if I knew p won't raise it to 4 but it seems so likely he will.

[kenrexford]

Ken you are clearly almost a good bridge player, if you would just not do stuff like bidding 3N on hands like this...

Bidding 3NT at the table on many hands "like this" where 3NT "cannot be right" is one source of frustration for my best partner. But, not for the obvious reason. Rather, it frustrates him that I always seem to land on my feet doing this.

 

This one admittedly might be a tad of an overreach. :P

[Oof Arted]

;)

 

4♥ up the ante

 

:P

[gnasher]

4♦.

 

3♠ will be raised more often than 4♦. If diamonds are raised, at least we'll have eight or nine trumps, whereas we'll rarely have eight spades.

 

If we get left in 3♠ it won't make. The main advantage of 3♠ is that we might be able to wriggle our way to a 5-3 club fit. I don't think that makes up for the risk of reaching 4♠x when we had a 4-4 diamond fit.

 

Edit: Another advantage of 3♠ is that partner may bid 3NT over it, which might be making. This isn't enough to make me change my mind about 3♠.

Edited June 3, 2009 by gnasher

[jdonn]

;)

 

4♥ up the ante

 

:(

LOL

 

The ante is high enough already thank you.

[kenrexford]

One huge upside to bidding 3♠ is that this possible final contract is the least likely to be doubled, IMO. The risk of 3♠X making is MUCH higher than the risk of 3NTX making. The risk of 3♠ yielding 9 tricks is lower than the risk of 4♣ or 4♦ yielding 10 tricks.

[Phil]

;)

 

4♥ up the ante

 

:)

;)

 

Unfortunately your LHO has the nuts and you are about to move a bunch of your stack over to him.

[barryallen]

I think that on most of the hands where you can make 3NT, partner wouldn't let you play there. Now, that may also be true for 3S but at least partner won't expect values for that bid. I was going to post earlier that the good news is that the opponents likely won't double you after partner raises to 4S. That isn't necessarily true when partner raises to 6NT.

I doubt partner would raise to 6NT but your point is still very valid. Damned if you do, damned if you don't with 3♠ fitting my duck beneath the duvet.

 

I would love to see the system that caters for exactly this type of hand!

[xcurt]

I think that on most of the hands where you can make 3NT, partner wouldn't let you play there. Now, that may also be true for 3S but at least partner won't expect values for that bid. I was going to post earlier that the good news is that the opponents likely won't double you after partner raises to 4S. That isn't necessarily true when partner raises to 6NT.

I doubt partner would raise to 6NT but your point is still very valid. Damned if you do, damned if you don't with 3♠ fitting my duck beneath the duvet.

 

I would love to see the system that caters for exactly this type of hand!

Ken's system caters to this type of hand. Advancer guesses a contract, and doubler is precluded from bidding again without 10 tricks in hand because no bids by advancer (except a slammish 4♥) show any values.

[nick_s]

I think that on most of the hands where you can make 3NT, partner wouldn't let you play there. <snip>

I would love to see the system that caters for exactly this type of hand!

Umm... 3♦, then correct to 3N? :D

 

More seriously, great problem. Thanks for posting.

[skjaeran]

3♠ for me. The contract least likely to be doubled, and least likely to encourage partner too much. (Not that it's obvious we'll be playing there.)

[Jlall]

4♦.

 

3♠ will be raised more often than 4♦.  If diamonds are raised, at least we'll have eight or nine trumps, whereas we'll rarely have eight spades.

 

If we get left in 3♠ it won't make.  The main advantage of 3♠ is that we might be able to wriggle our way to a 5-3 club fit.  I don't think that makes up for the risk of reaching 4♠x when we had a 4-4 diamond fit.

 

Edit: Another advantage of 3♠ is that partner may bid 3NT over it, which might be making.  This isn't enough to make me change my mind about 3♠.

Why is finding a 53 spade fit not a plus side of bidding 3S? I definitely think partner would X (and pass 3S) with min (13/14 etc) 51(43) hand types rather than overcall most of the time.

[neilkaz]

3♠ for me. The contract least likely to be doubled, and least likely to encourage partner too much. (Not that it's obvious we'll be playing there.)

I don't want to sound like I am playing follow the leader with Harald's posts, but 3♠ is really my top consideration with this call. I really don't want to be a trick higher with 4♦ and I am hoping to escape the aX.

[gwnn]

I used to pass these hands or bid 3♠ but I was sort of convinced of 4♦ by Adam and Andy. Thanks, I'll try it.

[gnasher]

Why is finding a 53 spade fit not a plus side of bidding 3S? I definitely think partner would X (and pass 3S) with min (13/14 etc) 51(43) hand types rather than overcall most of the time.

I didn't say it wasn't a plus - I said it was rare.

 

To me it seems unlikely that we'll play 3♠ in a 5-3 fit, because RHO might well have have raised to 4♥ with 2-3 card support and a good hand. We're more likely to find ourselves in 4♠ opposite that shape and a better hand, but that might not be a disaster.

[MFA]

Obviously close. I can see myself passing here but only against some types of opponents. If I pull, I pull to 3♠.

 

I'm very pessimistic about partner letting me off the hook, if I pull to 3♠ or 4♦. Ken talks about the chance of making 3♠X, which I would estimate is exactly 0%. If 3♠X has any chance at all, partner would have bid at least 4♠ already.

[Lobowolf]

3♠ and hold on like they were doing in Twister when the tornado hit. Not to leave my list of obscure movie references at just one, the sanguine replies remind me of Billy Bob Thornton in The Ice Harvest: "Roy, you are one @#$% optimist if you think you're ever getting out of that trunk."

 

On the other hand, Roy DID get out of the trunk, so maybe I'm just too negative.

[kenrexford]

Obviously close. I can see myself passing here but only against some types of opponents. If I pull, I pull to 3♠.

 

I'm very pessimistic about partner letting me off the hook, if I pull to 3♠ or 4♦. Ken talks about the chance of making 3♠X, which I would estimate is exactly 0%. If 3♠X has any chance at all, partner would have bid at least 4♠ already.

I'm not talking about the real chance of 3♠X making. I'm talking about the perceptional risk that I have a different hand, where 3♠ makes, when the opponent to my right is considering doubling or not.

[barryallen]

Obviously close. I can see myself passing here but only against some types of opponents. If I pull, I pull to 3♠.

 

I'm very pessimistic about partner letting me off the hook, if I pull to 3♠ or 4♦. Ken talks about the chance of making 3♠X, which I would estimate is exactly 0%. If 3♠X has any chance at all, partner would have bid at least 4♠ already.

I'm not talking about the real chance of 3♠X making. I'm talking about the perceptional risk that I have a different hand, where 3♠ makes, when the opponent to my right is considering doubling or not.

:rolleyes: Unless that opponent delves into the think tank for an extended period, you will more than likely get raised to 4♠ by partner and any lingering doubts about doubling will have long gone.

 

The only solution I can see is some form of religion which requires no obvious sign of said request, such as a mantra, prayer mat, rosary or clasping of hands

[kenrexford]

Well, now I'm liking 3NT more. I think it's the most likely bid to get partner to shrug his shoulders and pass rather than shrugging his shoulders and bidding.

[jdonn]

Well, now I'm liking 3NT more. I think it's the most likely bid to get partner to shrug his shoulders and pass rather than shrugging his shoulders and bidding.

And then the opponents shrug their shoulders and double, and shrug their shoulders and run the first 10 tricks.

 

But it's ok, partner doesn't really pass, he forces to slam opposite the values you've shown.

 

Agree with JLOL (you know which post).

[Codo]

One hand shows nothing, but partners hand was

AKJxx

A2

KQJ

AT8

 

As partner is known to have 16+ HCPS, the chance to play 3 ♠ are zero %.

So in my opinion, I had the choice to play 3 Heart X or 4 Spade or 5 Diamond.

(I did not thought about 6 NT, missed the 3 NT idea....)

 

I chose the first one, which leads to 3 ♥ X -2.

4 Spade is better, 5 Diamond at the other table failed. Maybe you do not need to reach 5 ♦ after 4 Diamond from us, but at least for them it was impossible.

[helene_t]

I don't think p will raise 4♦ to five. He will either bid 4♠, or he will bid 4♥ after which we try 4♠.

 

So most likely we will end up in 4♠ anyway. P might bid 5♦ over 4♦ but then again he might bid 5♠ over 3♠.

[jdonn]

I don't think p will raise 4♦ to five. He will either bid 4♠, or he will bid 4♥ after which we try 4♠.

 

So most likely we will end up in 4♠ anyway. P might bid 5♦ over 4♦ but then again he might bid 5♠ over 3♠.

I really don't agree with either point Helene. If we bid 4♦ and partner bids 4♥, then I don't think we will bid 4♠ on xxx. And if we start 3♠ it seems obvious for partner to bid 4♥ then pass our 4♠ bid, forcing to 5 on his own is a huge overbid.

[kenrexford]

Well, now I'm liking 3NT more.  I think it's the most likely bid to get partner to shrug his shoulders and pass rather than shrugging his shoulders and bidding.

And then the opponents shrug their shoulders and double, and shrug their shoulders and run the first 10 tricks.

 

But it's ok, partner doesn't really pass, he forces to slam opposite the values you've shown.

 

Agree with JLOL (you know which post).

Yes, but you are missing one thing.

 

Your partner might shrug his shoulder and pass.

Your RHO might shrug his shoulder and double.

 

But, you don't have to shrug your shoulders and pass the double. You could very easily now bid 4♦. That works.

 

On the second point -- partner bids slam. I still don't get this. I don't think it is practical to assign values to a 3NT call to the degree people are assigning values to the 3NT call.