Strong, but under pressure

[HighLow21]

Would you really double 3NT with that flat 10?

 

If I know my partner preempts soundly to semi-soundly, yes I would. Our side has all non-spade suits stopped, and if partner's preempt is marginally reasonable, we have a 7-card suit that will be tabled at trick 1 and a dead minimum of 14 HCP. 3NT is unlikely to make more than 9 in that scenario, and even then, only if declarer has a double-stop in spades; it could make 4 tricks; and I have defense against any runout.

[dbsboy]

I am not an expert, but 3NT seems obvious here.

 

You bid because you want to make a game. Given the cards, 3NT is very likely to be the only making game while 5C requires a lot of cards from partner (you have soooo many losers to get rid of!).

 

There are too many possibilities that 3NT would make, many of which are very common but you haven't thought of (as Phil said, 3 card spades from partner would block the suit).

 

I expect 4C would go down more often than 3NT. If you are afraid of going down, I would rather pass.

[HighLow21]

I am not an expert, but 3NT seems obvious here.

 

Me neither, but this isn't an A/E posting.

 

You bid because you want to make a game. Given the cards, 3NT is very likely to be the only making game while 5C requires a lot of cards from partner (you have soooo many losers to get rid of!).

True, but that must also be balanced by the other possible outcomes. In my view, the action isn't clearcut. I'm not saying 3NT is a bad bid, I'm just saying that I disagree that it's clearcut, and I wouldn't bid it on this precise holding.

 

 

There are too many possibilities that 3NT would make, many of which are very common but you haven't thought of (as Phil said, 3 card spades from partner would block the suit).

It wouldn't block the suit, it would cut communication between the defenders. I just think it's a bit presumptuous to think that partner should know to adore 3 small spades and to hate 2 small spades.

 

I expect 4C would go down more often than 3NT. If you are afraid of going down, I would rather pass.

I'm not suggesting 3NT will fail more often than 4C. I'm suggesting that (1) when 3NT fails, it often fails much more gloriously, and (2) depending on the acumen of the partnership, and especially your partner, you might find yourself in a serious pickle if 3NT is doubled back to you. Or what if partner pulls the double to 4 of a red suit? Do you like it now? Do you like it if the 3S opener doubles that? Or even if he doesn't, do you now notice a huge smile on your LHO's face? You often will. Do you sit the double or bid 5C, knowing you are positively dead? What a mess, and it's all because I shot 3NT with a dangerous hand. 4 of a red suit could easily end up 3 down and now, on the bidding, the enemy knows you can't make anything you bid and will crucify you. It's just not worth it for the 270 point pickup, in my mind. I can make up a 270 point swing on some other hand I fancy better.

 

Again, I didn't post this reply on an A/E forum post. This is a general bridge hand. I'm speaking from the experience of having partners who are at my skill or lower and, from my own experience, 3NT doubled back to me in this spot is positively terrifying. And so is any red suit runout by partner. (And if he does run out, it means we have A♠ and a spade ruff for the first 2 tricks whenever partner holds that precious 3 small spades in a weak one-suited hand.)

 

If I'm having a good day, "in luck" as SJ Simon would say, I would probably shoot 3NT; partner well might hold xxx or Jxx or have enough for me to have 9 fast tricks. If I'm not having a good day, I would bid 4C and hope for a plus. If I needed a game swing, 3NT it is. 3NT is a gamble and 4C is too, but the stakes at 4C are lower and I'm just trying to elucidate all of the risks of bidding 3NT that would run through my mind in this spot. Again, these are not a good 18 points in my mind; not at all. Trade any of my small spots in the other 3 suits for a small spade, and 3NT is unquestionably my bid.

[Phil]

If I'm having a good day, "in luck" as SJ Simon would say, I would probably shoot 3NT; partner well might hold xxx or Jxx or have enough for me to have 9 fast tricks.

 

If I'm not having a good day, I would bid 4C and hope for a plus.

 

Do you always play with this much emotion?

[HighLow21]

Do you always play with this much emotion?

 

I definitely get anxiety from time to time. But I try not to let it cloud my judgment.

[the hog]

An obvious 3NT. 99% unanimous I would guess.

I do play NLM but even if I didn't would not bid 4C. 4C is a nothing bid.

[CSGibson]

3N. I don't consider this close.

[sasioc]

 

3NT might be cold, and as I said before, 3NT makes a lot more sense to me at MP scoring, or if you know that your partner will take out 3NT when doing so is right and will weather it doubled when he knows it's right. I just side against 3NT because 9 fast tricks seems less likely to me than at first it would appear.

 

I might be saying something really dumb (another non-expert here..) but don't you want to bid game *more* at teams, where that game bonus is all the more juicy?

[HighLow21]

I might be saying something really dumb (another non-expert here..) but don't you want to bid game *more* at teams, where that game bonus is all the more juicy?

 

Yes and no--> the point I'm trying to argue is that the game bonus at IMP scoring is juicier, yes, but the cost of a large penalty against your side also is larger at IMPs. Reward at teams is higher and risk is also higher on this hand.

 

The comparison you're thinking of is whether to bid game or stay one level below game; it's almost always wrong to stay at the level below game at IMPs, especially vulnerable, because the reward is large and the downside, say -1 undoubled vs. making a partscore, is much smaller. +620 vs. +170 is a +350 swing; -50 vs. +140 is only a -190 swing.

 

Here, I'm saying it's possible that the downside is much more substantial than one down undoubled, and the upside is only about +270 or +300 relative to 4♣ making.

 

But since I seem to be the only one who lands on the minuses side of the ledger for this hand, I will diminish. B-)

 

By the way, original poster, I'm interested to see what the actual result on this hand was.

[Finch]

All the points HighLow makes are completely valid, but they don't change my conclusion which is, along with everyone else, that this is a 3NT bid. While it may not be 'everyone's' 3NT bid I agree with the sentiment, in that if I had this hand at the table I wouldn't think very long before bidding 3NT and I wouldn't seriously consider anything else.

 

Where I think your risk/reward balance is way off, is that you massively over-estimate the chance of getting doubled. I wouldn't be surprised to concede 200 or 250 sometimes, but it's very rare for LHO to have enough to double me. A first in, NV, 3S opener doesn't promise a 1-loser suit. It doesn't promise a 7-card either (which is actually worse for us, as it increases the chance the LHO has length). Doubling on a random 10-HCP hand with xx in spades is a fantasy, it's going to make a lot of the time.

[Finch]

 

Again, I didn't post this reply on an A/E forum post. This is a general bridge hand. I'm speaking from the experience of having partners who are at my skill or lower and, from my own experience, 3NT doubled back to me in this spot is positively terrifying. And so is any red suit runout by partner. (And if he does run out, it means we have A♠ and a spade ruff for the first 2 tricks whenever partner holds that precious 3 small spades in a weak one-suited hand.)

 

 

I'm not trying to go on at you, but there are two points worth making here.

 

The first is that, when given problems on the forums, you should assume you are playing with a partner you trust (unless otherwise specified), and usually I assume my partner is similar in skill to me, because that's the sort of person I usually play with.

 

The second is that your logic is a bit faulty as you are being so pessimistic. First of all you are worried that when LHO doubles, he's got 2 (or more likely 3) spades so the spade suit will run. Then you are worried that if LHO doubles and partner runs to a red suit, that LHO has a singleton spade.

 

p.s. the most common source of really large penalties is after coming in over a pre-empt. It's important not to let the 1-in-10 -1100 outweigh the other 9 +400s (I've just made those numbers up but you get the idea). The problem is that the -1100 is more memorable. There's some scientific term for the way people place more emphasis on extreme events when weighing up risk (other than 'irrationality'). I've only seen one 2000 after a 3NT overcall that I can remember, but they certainly happen.

[mikeh]

Just to be clear: when I wrote that this was 'everyone's 3N', that wasn't meant to mean that 100.0000000000000% percent of the bridge playing population of the galaxy would bid 3N.

 

I think the actual voting has reflected, quite well, the sentiment I intended to convey.

[HighLow21]

I'm not trying to go on at you, but there are two points worth making here.

 

The first is that, when given problems on the forums, you should assume you are playing with a partner you trust (unless otherwise specified), and usually I assume my partner is similar in skill to me, because that's the sort of person I usually play with.

 

The second is that your logic is a bit faulty as you are being so pessimistic. First of all you are worried that when LHO doubles, he's got 2 (or more likely 3) spades so the spade suit will run. Then you are worried that if LHO doubles and partner runs to a red suit, that LHO has a singleton spade.

 

p.s. the most common source of really large penalties is after coming in over a pre-empt. It's important not to let the 1-in-10 -1100 outweigh the other 9 +400s (I've just made those numbers up but you get the idea). The problem is that the -1100 is more memorable. There's some scientific term for the way people place more emphasis on extreme events when weighing up risk (other than 'irrationality'). I've only seen one 2000 after a 3NT overcall that I can remember, but they certainly happen.

 

Excellent points; I could be letting the severity of specific hands that really turned sour affect my decision making here. (I think it's a cognitive bias called something like the pessimism bias: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases).

 

Also, recency bias. I did just get positively nailed coming in over a preempt recently. The contract? 3NT. A very sound 3NT, even more sound than this case, that was wrongly doubled and duly socked 3 tricks.

 

It is so hard to main objectivity at this game sometimes.