WTP?

[Fluffy]

♠KQJ

♥A962

♦Q2

♣K984

 

 

1♦-1♥

1♠-2♣

2♥-??

 

 

no walsh 1♠, partner might still be balanced, if you wouldn't had bid 2♣ please say so.

[hotShot]

3NT seems a comfortable spot.

[Ant590]

if 2♣ was forcing to game, I can't see a problem with 2♠ here. If it isn't I think I just put 3NT on the table.

[655321]

if 2♣ was forcing to game, I can't see a problem with 2♠ here.

You would bid 2♠ here with four card spades in a similar hand, I don't see any point in showing 4 spades when you have perfectly good notrump bids available. Maybe 4♠ will make in the 4-3 fit anyway, but it still seems like an unnecessary complication to me.

[aguahombre]

Ok, so it is 15 HCP instead of 14. I would still have bid 3NT on the second round. This auction is already more complicated than I would have liked, and has given too much information to the defenders.

3NT now.

[the hog]

Agree with above. Messy bidding if opener can still be balanced - for me she has shown 4351

[gwnn]

Well I must admit I would have bid 3NT on the round before.

 

-a shadow from some past century

[Codo]

I correct my misbid from last round and bid the obvious 3 NT :(

[Jlall]

2N, 3N now would show a better hand to me (16-17ish).

[helene_t]

When we can bid a natural GF 2NT, it shows either a minimum GF (here: good 12 to modest 15) or more than a 3NT bid (i.e. 18+ here).

 

So I think this hand is close to 3NT, but 2NT it is.

 

I would have bid 3NT on the round before, though. By bidding via FSF I show either the 18+ type, or interest in some other strain, probably diamonds.

[andy_h]

I'm not sure I quite understand people suggesting 3NT the round before? Isn't that usually whatever your designated range is, but normally a hand that doesn't have much interest in opener's suit? Here we have ♠KQJ ♥A ♦Q so I definitely prefer to see if I can find out if opener can be 4162 at a comfortable level rather than bidding 3NT and have opener to guess what to do over that.

[gnasher]

I think bidding 4th suit is normal. I don't want to play in 3NT opposite Axxx Kx KJxxxx x.

 

The style is rather alien to me, but if partner can still be either 4342 or 4351, presumably I now have to bid 2NT to give him a chance to say which he has.

[hotShot]

I'm not sure I quite understand people suggesting 3NT the round before? Isn't that usually whatever your designated range is, but normally a hand that doesn't have much interest in opener's suit? Here we have ♠KQJ ♥A ♦Q so I definitely prefer to see if I can find out if opener can be 4162 at a comfortable level rather than bidding 3NT and have opener to guess what to do over that.

Would you agree that after:

1♦ - 1♥

1♠

the only reasonable fit can be in ♣ or less likely in ♦.

If partner has a 6-card ♦ suit, this will be a great source of tricks in 3NT.

And it's far from sure that there is a ♣ fit, because that would require opener to hold a 4144 (4054) shape.

We are strong enough for 3NT and our side can't benefit much from further bidding.

If we bid 3NT now, LHO might lead a ♥ or ♠, which in this case seems not to dangerous as partner has 3♥'s.

 

Now that partner bid 2♥, we can expect a ♣ lead and I don't think it's to our advantage.

[Fluffy]

thx for the answers, partner had today:

 

♠9xxx

♥KQx

♦AKxxxx

♣-

 

 

Not playing 2NT forcing now I was completelly stuck with no rebid, guess I'll have to change my system a bit.

 

♦4-1 made 3NT unmakeable.

[jdonn]

LOL fluffy you beat me I was about to say "2NT and I hate 3NT, partner could even be 4360"

 

Seriously field what's the rush to bid 3NT? We don't even have very strong clubs. Or hearts! If I was going to make an agreement about 3NT over 1♠ it would definitely have at least two certain stoppers in both hearts and clubs. In fact it's so unlikely I would want to bid it that I could imagine wanting to play 1-1-1-3NT as something artificial, like a raise of the last bid suit to came on a balanced hand that thinks 3NT might be better.

[mike777]

♠KQJ

♥A962

♦Q2

♣K984

 

 

1♦-1♥

1♠-2♣

2♥-??

 

 

no walsh 1♠, partner might still be balanced, if you wouldn't had bid 2♣ please say so.

3nt not 2c which would be artificial for me (xyz)

 

3nt lets pard know I have a balanced minimum.....14-15. If she wants to bid on, fine.

[andy_h]

I'm not sure I quite understand people suggesting 3NT the round before? Isn't that usually whatever your designated range is, but normally a hand that doesn't have much interest in opener's suit? Here we have ♠KQJ ♥A ♦Q so I definitely prefer to see if I can find out if opener can be 4162 at a comfortable level rather than bidding 3NT and have opener to guess what to do over that.

Would you agree that after:

1♦ - 1♥

1♠

the only reasonable fit can be in ♣ or less likely in ♦.

If partner has a 6-card ♦ suit, this will be a great source of tricks in 3NT.

And it's far from sure that there is a ♣ fit, because that would require opener to hold a 4144 (4054) shape.

We are strong enough for 3NT and our side can't benefit much from further bidding.

If we bid 3NT now, LHO might lead a ♥ or ♠, which in this case seems not to dangerous as partner has 3♥'s.

 

Now that partner bid 2♥, we can expect a ♣ lead and I don't think it's to our advantage.

Our fit can still lie within clubs or diamonds and I certainly wouldn't say they occur rarely. Like you said, if partner has a 6 diamonds this will be a great source of tricks in 3NT, so that means he has 4x6x. Aren't you liking your slam chances? Like jdonn said, our heart and club stoppers aren't even great so 3NT could well be going off. And also, if I find out about a club fit I will be in a much better position than you'll be because I know partner is short in hearts.

[hotShot]

Our fit can still lie within clubs or diamonds and I certainly wouldn't say they occur rarely. Like you said, if partner has a 6 diamonds this will be a great source of tricks in 3NT, so that means he has 4x6x. Aren't you liking your slam chances? Like jdonn said, our heart and club stoppers aren't even great so 3NT could well be going off. And also, if I find out about a club fit I will be in a much better position than you'll be because I know partner is short in hearts.

Would you agree that after:

1♦ - 1♥

1♠

opener has 4+♦ exactly 4♠ and less than 4♥?

This means that:

4342 => 25,5%

4243 => 25,3%

4252 => 12,3% (typo corrected)

4351 => 7,7%

4153 => 7,6%

So in 78,4% of the cases our side has no fit and should be in 3NT.

4144 =>10,7%

4261 => 2,7%

4162 => 2,7%

In another 16.1% 3 NT is not necessarily bad.

In this about 95% slam is unlikely unless partner has much more than a minimum opening.

I'm sure if partner has extra strength or shape he will bid again over 3NT.

 

So if I know that 3NT is our contract in something between 78 and ~90% of the cases, why should I exchange more information that won't help me much, but could make opps find the best lead?

 

On the given board the chance not to find a 3-2 break in ♦ was 32%.

This was bad luck, I would not change my strategy based on bad luck.

Edited January 29, 2010 by hotShot

[andy_h]

Our fit can still lie within clubs or diamonds and I certainly wouldn't say they occur rarely. Like you said, if partner has a 6 diamonds this will be a great source of tricks in 3NT, so that means he has 4x6x. Aren't you liking your slam chances? Like jdonn said, our heart and club stoppers aren't even great so 3NT could well be going off. And also, if I find out about a club fit I will be in a much better position than you'll be because I know partner is short in hearts.

Would you agree that after:

1♦ - 1♥

1♠

opener has 4+♦ exactly 4♠ and less than 4♥?

This means that:

4342 => 25,5%

4243 => 25,3%

4242 => 12,3%

4351 => 7,7%

4153 => 7,6%

So in 78,4% of the cases our side has no fit and should be in 3NT.

4144 =>10,7%

4261 => 2,7%

4162 => 2,7%

In another 16.1% 3 NT is not necessarily bad.

In this about 95% slam is unlikely unless partner has much more than a minimum opening.

I'm sure if partner has extra strength or shape he will bid again over 3NT.

 

So if I know that 3NT is our contract in something between 78 and ~90% of the cases, why should I exchange more information that won't help me much, but could make opps find the best lead?

 

On the given board the chance not to find a 3-2 break in ♦ was 32%.

This was bad luck, I would not change my strategy based on bad luck.

Exactly 4♠? Partner can't be 56?

 

I don't really know percentages so I'll trust with your figures. My question is, our opponents have already heard us bid 3 suits so most of the time they will already know which suit they're going to lead. Gathering more information from partner will benefit us a whole lot more as we need to determine which game we belong in. Sure I agree with you that more often than not we belong in 3NT but the added chances that we can get to a slam or find out 5♦ is better than 3NT is just too great to pass up on. Slam can even make without extra strength! Axxx x KJ10xxx Ax or Axxx Kx AJ10xxx x or 10xxx x AKxxxxx A or xxxx x AKxxxx AQ etc. I would feel much safer to be able to show these hands and *then* get to 3NT (if responder has no slam interest) rather than partner bashing 3NT and having us to guess if we should go past 3NT or not.

 

Take gnasher's example as well where 5♦ is much superior than 3NT. Would you also find yourself unlucky?

[fred]

4342 => 25,5%

4243 => 25,3%

4242 => 12,3%

4351 => 7,7%

4153 => 7,6%

4144 =>10,7%

4261 => 2,7%

4162 => 2,7%

I am not sure how you came up with these numbers, but they feel very wrong to me. For one thing, you seem to be implying that partner will have exactly 4 diamonds over 60% of the time (and I realize that 4242 was a typo - I am not counting that).

 

If that is right I may have to give up bridge.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[PhantomSac]

4342 => 25,5%

4243 => 25,3%

4242 => 12,3%

4351 => 7,7%

4153 => 7,6%

4144 =>10,7%

4261 => 2,7%

4162 => 2,7%

I am not sure how you came up with these numbers, but they feel very wrong to me. For one thing, you seem to be implying that partner will have exactly 4 diamonds over 60% of the time (and I realize that 4242 was a typo - I am not counting that).

 

If that is right I may have to give up bridge.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

4054, 4063, 4360, 5x6x are all missing as shapes so I'm sure his numbers are wrong. They are normal hotshot numbers though ;)

[twcho]

Assuming opener will rebid 1♠ on all hands with 4♠ and without 4♥, and excluding the chance of 5+♠6+♦ or 4♠7+♦ (which add up to about 3% anyway), the possibility for each hand shape are:

4342 => 24.3%

4243 => 24.3%

4252 => 14.6%

4351 => 8.5%

4153 => 8.5%

4144 => 9.1%

4261 => 3.6%

4162 => 3.6%

4054 => 1.4%

4360 => 0.9%

4063 => 0.9%

The chance for holding exactly 4♦ is 57.8% which is pretty close to 60%. However, in the case of holding only 4♦, many may choose to rebid 1NT and that will greatly reduce the possibility of only 4 cards in ♦.

[fred]

Assuming opener will rebid 1♠ on all hands with 4♠ and without 4♥, and excluding the chance of 5+♠6+♦ or 4♠7+♦ (which add up to about 3% anyway), the possibility for each hand shape are:

4342 => 24.3%

4243 => 24.3%

4252 => 14.6%

4351 => 8.5%

4153 => 8.5%

4144 => 9.1%

4261 => 3.6%

4162 => 3.6%

4054 => 1.4%

4360 => 0.9%

4063 => 0.9%

The chance for holding exactly 4♦ is 57.8% which is pretty close to 60%. However, in the case of holding only 4♦, many may choose to rebid 1NT and that will greatly reduce the possibility of only 4 cards in ♦.

My instincts (and some rough math I did in my head) suggest that your 57.8% is also way off the mark even if opener always rebids 1S whenever he has 4 cards in that suit.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[PhantomSac]

4342 being 3 times as likely as 4351 seems weird.

[fred]

I still have no idea where hotShot's and twcho's numbers came from, but I strongly suspect that one reason they go against instinct is that they do not take HCPs into account.

 

If partner has 4342 or 4243, he has 12-14 HCP.

 

If partner has any other distribution, his HCP range is much wider.

 

But even ignoring that, something seems wrong. Consider:

 

We know partner has 4 spades and 4 diamonds and we know what our own 13 cards are. What are the odds that NONE of partner's 5 unknown cards are diamonds?

 

Can it really be anywhere close to 60%?

 

That is the math problem I tried to solve (roughly) in my head and the answer I got was "definitely not".

 

Either the question I was asking was wrong, I made a mistake when I tried to figure out the answer, or hotShot and twcho are way off the mark.

 

Yes, I know my question doesn't eliminate hands with 4-card heart support or hands that would open the bidding 1S, but ignoring these possibilities increase the chances that partner has exactly 4 diamonds. My question also ignores HCPs, but that was intentional as I was trying to get roughly the same answer as hotShot and twcho (or hopefully not roughly the same answer!).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com