The Misadventures of Rex and Jay--#5748

[microcap]

In first position in a team game, I held [hv=pc=n&n=sq2h42dakqt432cq2]133|100[/hv]. I made the judgment call that with 7-2-2-2 and limited value for the Qx holdings that I would bid gambling 3NT.

 

Agree or disagree?

 

With my luck of course, I caught Rex with the following monster:[hv=pc=n&s=sat9hakqj76dckj42]133|100[/hv] Rex decided to gamble 6♦, a losing proposition when the J♦ didn't fall. Obviously, 6♥ is best and as it turns out, 6NT made in the other room when the A♣ was onside.

 

While I have issues with Rex's call, I put him on the spot and it's my fault.

 

Anyone have any better use for the opening 3NT bid?

 

If you like gambling 3NT, do you like the strict definition of the running minor with nothing outside?

[Fluffy]

This is the first time on the Rex&Jay series where I don't really blame anyone. I think both of you made reasonable decisions.

 

But having said so, gambling 3NT is not working, I see more disasters from using it than the contrary. You should rather find an excuse not to use it whenever you can.

[microcap]

This is the first time on the Rex&Jay series where I don't really blame anyone. I think both of you made reasonable decisions.

 

But having said so, gambling 3NT is not working, I see more disasters from using it than the contrary. You should rather find an excuse not to use it whenever you can.

 

 

C'mon Fluff--this is the first time in 5748 disasters? LOL :P

 

Glad I am not the only one who has noticed more disasters than successes with this.

[dake50]

Would a 5H response mean pick a red slam?

4C, then 5H shows H-solid?

DJ not falling = not D:3-3, nor D:Jx-4. Not awful slam.

And deciding DJ was crucial after 3NT? Can you find it is missing?

Do you have a "warning" -- void in support bid?

What was available before "this choice was disastrous".

[gnasher]

I don't think you should strain to open a Gambling 3NT. It's already quite hard for partner to judge what to do when all he has to worry about is your side-suit shape and perhaps a side queen. The more variation your allow, the worse this problem will be.

 

In fact, I don't think you should play a Gambling 3NT at all. Even when I have a hand like the ones in the books, I usually open it at the one-level instead. When I'm dealt an opening hand, it seems unnatural to start by skipping three levels in order to wrongside our most likely contract.

 

Your question seems to suggest that you play it partly because you can't think of any better meaning for a 3NT opening. If so, that's not much of a reason.

[mike777]

In first position in a team game, I held [hv=pc=n&n=sq2h42dakqt432cq2]133|100[/hv]. I made the judgment call that with 7-2-2-2 and limited value for the Qx holdings that I would bid gambling 3NT.

 

Agree or disagree?

 

With my luck of course, I caught Rex with the following monster:[hv=pc=n&s=sat9hakqj76dckj42]133|100[/hv] Rex decided to gamble 6♦, a losing proposition when the J♦ didn't fall. Obviously, 6♥ is best and as it turns out, 6NT made in the other room when the A♣ was onside.

 

While I have issues with Rex's call, I put him on the spot and it's my fault.

 

Anyone have any better use for the opening 3NT bid?

 

If you like gambling 3NT, do you like the strict definition of the running minor with nothing outside?

 

 

For me this is a tough hand:

 

1d=1h

2d=3c(gf)(not weak hand with 4h andlong clubs...I cant show that hand.)

3d=3h(gf)

4h=6h?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

For me this is a tough hand:

 

1d=1h

2d=3c(gf)( not weak hand with 4h and long clubs...I cant show that hand. )

3d=3h(gf)

4h=6h?

 

Side issue:

1D - 1H

2D - 2S! ( cheapest new suit forcing over minor rebid; may be artificial )

2NT- 3H ( forcing as before )

etc...

 

But now:

1D - 1H

2D - 3C = not forcing ( could be reserved for the weak 4h/6+c hand or an invitational 5/5; prior agreement needed ).

[gwnn]

if only there was a 6 card minor we could play on the 2 level after

1d-1H

2d

...

[ceeb]

With regard to bidding 6♦ it's worth noting that you should not assume that ♦ will run for no loser.

 

Accept for the sake of discussion the partnership decision to play Gambling 3NT. Assuming we play that 3NT shows a "running minor", just how running must it be? Even if the partnership has accidentally agreed "absolutely solid", in reality when you are dealt AKQxxxx the suit is a strong favorite to run for 3NT purposes -- especially if partner won't sit with a void. So given the stipulation that Gambling 3NT on AKQJxxx is a winning strategy, the case for opening 3NT with AKQxxxx is weaker by so slight an amount that it would be very surprising if the dividing line falls between the two. Therefore as a practical matter, if you play Gambling 3NT at all you will not flinch at using it with AKQxxxx.

 

That being the case, how likely is the suit solid for slam purposes? Opener is known to have the AKQ and 4 of the remaining 10 cards, hence 40% to hold the J in which case the suit nearly always runs, but a 60% chance to be missing the J including a 1/3 chance to be missing both J and 10. In the last case it is only 35% to have a 3-3 break and no loser; with AKQ10xxx adding in Jx brings the chance to fractionally over 50% (54% that the J drops per http://dna-view.com/suitbreaks.htm, less 2% for singleton J). The net is only about 5/8 chance that a suit that is "solid" for NT purposes will run opposite a void. (I'm ignoring 8-card suits, but perhaps in that case as well opener can and should "cheat" by opening with AKJxxxxx.)

 

On the present hand, 6♦ is almost surely off the ♣A so trumps will need to run. In addition, we may have a handling problem: likely need to cross to dummy with a ♥ ruff (though the actual ♣Q is a nice bonus) and a ♠ lead could be a killer (though the actual ♠Q is helpful). Bidding 6♦ is betting that the chance of losing a handling trick is under 20% (because 80% chance of no handling trick x 5/8 chance trumps run is 50%). I don't have a strong opinion about that; my point is just that if you bid with your eyes open you accept that a ♦ loser is substantial possibility and will blame fate, not partner, if it happens.