simple decision

[Fluffy]

All white, match points.

 

♠J9853

♥AK

♦Q954

♣A10

 

 

1♠-2♣ (not GF)

2♦-3♦ (GF)

[billw55]

All white, match points.

 

♠J9853

♥AK

♦Q954

♣A10

 

 

1♠-2♣ (not GF)

2♦-3♦ (GF)

3NT. I don't see the problem.

[Hanoi5]

3NT. I see the problem but I suppose partner has to help in order to solve it. We have two suits and good hearts for bidding 3NT so depending on partner's cards in our two suits slam is a possibility or not. If partner is a client who can't figure this out, 3NT anyway.

[billw55]

3NT. I see the problem but I suppose partner has to help in order to solve it. We have two suits and good hearts for bidding 3NT so depending on partner's cards in our two suits slam is a possibility or not. If partner is a client who can't figure this out, 3NT anyway.

If the only problem is that we might have slam depending on partner's cards, then I consider that his problem not mine. ;)

 

Seriously though 3NT seems a perfect description of this hand - heart stoppers, no 6th spade, nor 5th diamond, nor 3rd club. I see no alternative. If slam is there, partner can bid again.

[whereagles]

The question is whether you should bid 4D on the good fit or 3NT on the heart stop.

 

I'm normally a practical guy, so I bid 3NT. If I bury a slam opposite x xxx AKxx KQJxx so be it.

[billw55]

The question is whether you should bid 4D on the good fit or 3NT on the heart stop.

I still don't get it. Partner already knows about the diamond fit. Q9xx is an ordinary holding for the 2♦ rebid so there's nothing special to show there. But I have as yet said nothing about the heart stoppers.

[aguahombre]

Again, if Fluff posted it, it must not really be the "simple decision" he chose for the title. But, this time I think I see what the problem is: my working cards and heavy controls everywhere but in spades (my opening suit) cannot be guessed by partner. This hand has become a mountain for a diamond slam.

 

Will start with 3H, and cooperate with partner all the way to where he wants to go.

[mikeh]

The question has little to do with diamonds, as I see it. The question is about our club holding. Opposite something as bland as x xxx AKxx KQJxx we want to be in slam, and why would partner go slamming over 3N?

 

I assume 3♥ by us would express doubt about heart stops for 3N, rather than being in any manner a slam probe......AKJxx Qxx QJxx x would like to see 3N from partner if he held xx Kx Axxx KQJxx as one example.

 

However, at matchpoints we have to bid 3N. There are simply too many non-slam hands where he has to bid 3♦ and where 3♥ by us leads only to confusion.

 

I'm actually happy this is mps: at imps I'd still be in the tank.

[aguahombre]

I assume 3♥ by us would express doubt about heart stops for 3N, rather than being in any manner a slam probe......AKJxx Qxx QJxx x would like to see 3N from partner if he held xx Kx Axxx KQJxx as one example.

Yes, partner might well take 3H as a 3NT probe for the moment; but if I then remove 3NT partner will know what is going on. And, if partner doesn't bid 3NT (likely), we are still in slam mode.

 

Of course, if in our methods, we cannot "unring the bell" after a 3H bid, then I just have to give up and bid 3NT.

Edited September 26, 2011 by aguahombre

[Fluffy]

On this hand I saw a lot of potential in spades with ♠J98xx opposite singleton.

 

But you need singleton in front. How to know if there is a singleton there? well I bid 3♥, partner will bid 3♠ with doubleton and you can bid 3NT over that. If he doesn't you can be pretty sure he does have singleton or perhaps a low doubleton (but rare)

 

On this hand I bid 3♥ LHO doubled and partner volunteer over 3NT to bid 4♦, I bid 4♥ and he confirmed shortness in spades with 4♠.

 

After blackwood showing 2 keycards I had exactly mike's hand in mind: ♠x ♥xxx ♦AKxx ♣KQJxx. Perhaps without ♣J. But he had something even better:

 

♠A ♥xxx ♦KJxx ♣KQJxx (better because it makes ♦9 to play, perhaps picking ♦10 4th at your right).

 

Could partner bid the same without ♦J? or without ♣Q?, maybe with ♠K instead of the ace?, then I'd be on a bottom most likelly.

 

The hand was played at 28 tables, and +920 scored 100%, and I mean a full top: nobody else. A good slam normally gives you around 85%, but since I got 100% perhaps I gambled more than I though a priori.

[the hog]

All white, match points.

 

♠J9853

♥AK

♦Q954

♣A10

 

 

1♠-2♣ (not GF)

2♦-3♦ (GF)

 

3NT. I have already shown the D fit with 3D.

[han]

I don't think partner would bid on over 3NT if the spade ace was the king Fluffy.

[gnasher]

I can see two possible problems with 3♥:

- Suppose that LHO doesn't double 3♥. Do you think partner would still bid 3♠ with Q xxx KJxx KQJxx or Q xx KJxx KQJxxx?

- Doesn't the sequence 3♥-3♠;3NT show doubt about the heart stop? I'd expect partner to remove 3NT with Qx xx in the majors.

 

The problem is that we're trying to use 3♥ to meet two different objectives - finding the best game when opener has a shaky heart stop, and determining whether we have a slam without bypassing 3NT.

[jdeegan]

:P 3♥, intending to bid 4♣ next time.

[Hanoi5]

Wouldn't your partner have moved on with A xxx KJxx KQJxx over 3NT?

[JLOGIC]

I can see two possible problems with 3♥:

- Suppose that LHO doesn't double 3♥. Do you think partner would still bid 3♠ with Q xxx KJxx KQJxx or Q xx KJxx KQJxxx?

- Doesn't the sequence 3♥-3♠;3NT show doubt about the heart stop? I'd expect partner to remove 3NT with Qx xx in the majors.

 

The problem is that we're trying to use 3♥ to meet two different objectives - finding the best game when opener has a shaky heart stop, and determining whether we have a slam without bypassing 3NT.

 

I think partner would bid 3N with Q xxx KJxx KQJxx, why would he be interested in some other contract?

 

But I don't know why I'm arguing with you since I agree with the point of your post.

[aguahombre]

The problem is that we're trying to use 3♥ to meet two different objectives - finding the best game when opener has a shaky heart stop, and determining whether we have a slam without bypassing 3NT.

Maybe some were trying to do what you state. But the fact that 3H is below 3NT doesn't necessarily mean we ever intended to play 3NT; it just means we might have had that lower objective. Going on to the 4 level on the next round clarifies which of the two different objectives was in play.