Seems like an easy one, but...

[Poky]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk82hjt2dk9cq9642&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=3dppdp]133|200[/hv]

[pooltuna]

one alternative is not a poll it is a dictatorship nevertheless ...hamman eggs in one basket

[gszes]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk82hjt2dk9cq9642&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=3dppdp]133|200[/hv]

 

I vote for pass with 3n coming in 2nd (when I am feeling

adventurous). I have my sp sometimes preempts work

apology card ready to flash if pass backfires.

 

hard to picture much of anything having a chance of making

our way if we cannot set 3d. Also many ways 3d can go down

with our having no shot at game.

[mikeh]

So far the comments make this a 2-horse race between pass (with one trump trick) and 3N (with no ability to hold up). My reaction was that this was a close call, but I didn't see either pass or 3N as part of the equation....maybe I'm too old-fashioned.

 

To me our choices are 4♣, which doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy since it is a nothing bid and this doesn't look like a good hand for 5♣ should I catch partner with a big hand, and 4♦.

 

4♦ will get us to a 4-3 (edit: I originally mistyped 4-4, but I think my comment about this not being usually good suggested the error was mechanical...thanks to Art for pointing it out) fit a lot, and that isn't usually good when the suits aren't breaking. Otoh, sometimes partner is decent enough to hold and be able to bid a 5 card major, and then we'll be very happy. And if we end up in a 4-3, well, my hand actually looks pretty good for that. I like my diamond holding, and I like the heart 10.

 

Put another way, if I have to decide, on a single dummy basis, between 3N and 4M, I suspect 4M will look a LOT better.....for 3N to work, we need partner to hold a diamond stop or for LHO to hold a stiff: which give partner a lot of diamonds for his takeout double.

 

As for defending: we can assign declarer 6 trump tricks, and now all he needs is one winner in dummy and we will be losing imps should our game make.

[whereagles]

If pard has a min dbl 3NT will be hopeless and if he has a moderately good hand (as in 15+ with a stopper), he could have bid 3NT himself.

 

I could swear pass is the right move, but I can't bring myself to do it so I'll try 4C.

[cherdano]

I thought this is between pass, 4♣ and 3N - 4♦ did not occur to me. On reflection, I still don't like it. Unlike Mike, I would be extremely happy with +500 against 3♦, since I don't think chances for game are very good. I mean, chances are good that some game will make, but we also will end up in the wrong game quite a bit.

 

In fact, I would still feel ok with +200. Hence I pass.

[ArtK78]

4♦ will get us to a 4-4 fit a lot, and that isn't usually good when the suits aren't breaking. Otoh, sometimes partner is decent enough to hold and be able to bid a 5 card major, and then we'll be very happy. And if we end up in a 4-3, well, my hand actually looks pretty good for that. I like my diamond holding, and I like the heart 10.

 

I have serious doubts about the chances of us arriving at a 4-4 fit when my distribution is 3-3-2-5. But I could be missing something.

 

Did you mean 4-3?

[mikeh]

yes...thx...it was a typo, as I suspect was clear from my description of how this '4-4' fit would usually not be good :D I fixed it, with credit given!

[nigel_k]

Pass would be ok at matchpoints but at IMPs I just don't have enough confidence that we can beat it. I would bid 4♣ because 3NT needs a lot and we can easily gain from a small plus at both tables, or a small minus in 4♣ compared with bigger minuses elsewhere.

[JLOGIC]

I would bid 3N at all forms of scoring

[HighLow21]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this problem feel like the same problem as in the other 3NT-over-preempt post, except we're looking at advancer seat rather than direct seat? If you can't bid 3NT on one you can't bid 3NT on the other, IMO.

 

Mike raises an excellent point about the possibility of a 4-3 fit being a better than 3NT, but either way I think game is 50-50 roughly, maybe worse. I bid 3NT just because I didn't on the other one, and because 9 tricks seems more likely than 10. :-)

 

Please, partner, don't have a minimum on this one!!

[mikeh]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this problem feel like the same problem as in the other 3NT-over-preempt post, except we're looking at advancer seat rather than direct seat? If you can't bid 3NT on one you can't bid 3NT on the other, IMO.

 

Mike raises an excellent point about the possibility of a 4-3 fit being a better than 3NT, but either way I think game is 50-50 roughly, maybe worse. I bid 3NT just because I didn't on the other one, and because 9 tricks seems more likely than 10. :-)

 

Please, partner, don't have a minimum on this one!!

 

Ok...you asked....so here goes....you're wrong! *

 

I don't think the two situations are at all analogous.

 

In the first one, we have the big hand and we have to enter the auction in a constructive fashion (I don't think anyone passed).Partner's hand was unknown and constrained only by our hand and inferences drawn from the opening bid.

 

 

Here, we can infer a lot more about the hands. We can infer, for example, that it is extremely unlikely that partner has any diamond length, unless he has a huge hand. He wouldn't usually double with some 4333 13 count, for example.

 

We can infer, therefore, that on the vast majority of hands, the opps can establish the diamonds at trick 1, by the simple expedient of ducking. While that was also possible on the other thread, on that thread there was a non-trivial chance that partner held 3 spades, thus probably isolating the spades....here, that is extremely unlikely.

 

In the other thread, we had no realistic alternative to 3N....I appreciate that you disagree. However, when you are literally the only one clinging to that view, you may wish to concede that you are in error. Admitting to error is a pre-requisite to changing one's mind. And one can never improve without changing one's mind.

 

Here, we have several plausible alternatives. Certainly 3N is one of them....I think it to be poor, but it is definitely plausible and may in fact work out best.....AQxx xxxx xx AKx makes my 4♦ look ugly and 3N is reasonable.

 

Pass may also work out, in that we may fail in the wrong game, have no game, or do better than the 'nothing' call of 4♣. That 'nothing' call may also turn out to score well, even if it is not the optimal spot, it may do better than the alternative we choose instead.

 

The other thread carries with it none, or very little, of these issues.

 

The fact that the choice of call may appear similar (in both we may see that the real choice is between 3N and 4♣) doesn't mean that the reasoning is at all the same.

 

 

*The use of the exclamation point was a rhetorical device and should not be taken as expressing a feeling of infallibility in what follows.....I'm thinking of making this statement my signature.

[CSGibson]

3N for me. I'm not going to overthink this one.

[HighLow21]

 

<snip>

 

*The use of the exclamation point was a rhetorical device and should not be taken as expressing a feeling of infallibility in what follows.....I'm thinking of making this statement my signature.

 

You had me at "asterisk."

 

I agree there are similarities and differences. This is another hand I don't like for which 3NT may be best or may be horrendous. Curse those rotten preempts!

 

And you don't need to worry about upsetting me with your expertise, Mike. B-) I had a rough first week on the forums here but I feel I've done a good at job at correcting my errors in it, and you and many others have been very respectful towards me ever since I started showing some respect and deference to "all y'all."