Would you Move?

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&n=sa764haq6da9754ca&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1n(12-14)p2n(diamonds)p3d(DHxx%5Bx%5D%20or%20better)p3s(natural%2C%20FG)p3np]133|200[/hv]

Matchpoints

a) What calls would you seriously consider?

b) What call would you make?

[Bbradley62]

I cannot say what I'd do next, since your system is foreign to me, but passing is not an option.

[aguahombre]

I cannot say what I'd do next, since your system is foreign to me, but passing is not an option.

Agree, agree, and agree. Even though their system isn't our choice either, it is clear from the explanations that through the 3 rounds of bidding, responder doesn't know anything other than that they have a nice diamond fit but not a spade fit. Neither the strength between 11-14 nor exact pattern of the opener have been touched ---with AI, anyway.

 

Strong NT players with a competent NMF structure might well be able to shut down in 3NT, but that is not what this pair has to work with here. Responder MUST bid some more.

[nigel_k]

Responder has shown slam interest with spades and diamonds. Opener should go past 3NT with a suitable hand in context so something like KQx Kxx KQxx xxx is not possible and opener could easily have Jxx KJx Kxx KJxx. Better hands for opener might also fail in 5♦ on a bad day. So I would definitely consider pass, but slightly prefer 4♥ to continue describing my shape and hope to make 11 tricks if opener is unsuitable.

[jillybean]

4♥ Kickback

[aguahombre]

Responder has shown slam interest with spades and diamonds.

You seem to know more about their system than what was revealed in the OP.

[paulg]

If it is matchpoints, as you were playing successfully yesterday, then I would consider passing. But I would probably just bid 4NT. I don't want to force to slam with all these spade losers and weak diamonds.

 

I presume this sequence is not a slam invite, but tends to be used either with a slam try or a hand that has doubts about 3NT.

[Trinidad]

Responder has shown slam interest with spades and diamonds.

You seem to know more about their system than what was revealed in the OP.

I agree that "has shown slam interest" is worded a little strong. I would go with: "has suggested at least some slam interest".

 

While it is true that we aren't given any additional information about the OP's system, it is not difficult to recognize it as a common variation of four suit transfers. These are almost exclusively played in combination with Stayman, another not uncommon convention.

 

It seems reasonable to assume that hands with this pattern that have no slam interest at all but merely want to play in game would bid Stayman and sign off in 3NT without mentioning their diamond suit. That means that if you chose the sequence in the OP, you are showing more slam interest than "no slam interest at all". This may vary from "I will bid a grand, but I don't know the denomination." to "I am looking for partner's magic hand.". And Nigel is correct that partner doesn't have the magic hand, because 3NT denies that.

 

The questions are, therefore:

- Are there non magic hands that still lead to decent slams?

- Can we find out about those with our bidding system?

- Are we willing to risk playing in 5♦ (or possibly 4NT) when the field might be in 3NT? (Relevant at MPs, much less at IMPs)

 

To me this means that I would definitely make another try at IMPs (and do not consider pass an LA), but I lean towards passing at MPs (but it is certainly an LA to try for slam).

 

Rik

[lamford]

The questions are, therefore:

- Are there non magic hands that still lead to decent slams?

- Can we find out about those with our bidding system?

- Are we willing to risk playing in 5♦ (or possibly 4NT) when the field might be in 3NT? (Relevant at MPs, much less at IMPs)

 

To me this means that I would definitely make another try at IMPs (and do not consider pass an LA), but I lean towards passing at MPs (but it is certainly an LA to try for slam).

 

Rik

I did a simulation with Bridge Analyser and slam made 67.8% of the time opposite a hand with values in hearts and clubs (3 pts in hearts, 4pts in clubs) which seems a reasonable conclusion from the AI.

 

The winners of the pairs here both passed when polled. Neither they nor I were involved with the hand. Your last sentence is excellent, and as some guess there is UI. Methods are as stated, transfer then bid is 5+-4 natural, FG. The next question is that if there is a slow 3NT from partner, how do you rule?

[wank]

i think it's auto to make a try. there's a lot of space between 3nt and slam for us to stop in with our 30+ hcp if things don't pan out.

[paulg]

The next question is that if there is a slow 3NT from partner, how do you rule?

I'm not convinced much is really suggested by a slow 3NT, aside from the fact that partner had something to think about. But in such auctions this is almost always the case, particularly at matchpoints, where you have to consider five diamonds, possibly four spades on a 4-3 fit and three notrump. Normally the slowness of the bid is unrelated to slam possibilities, but more about deciding which is the best game.

 

You could argue that a slow three notrump suggests that there is doubt that this is best game: but you could also argue that partner has made this decision after considerable thought and therefore it ought to be!

 

I think pass and bidding on would be established as LAs. I don't think either is suggested over the other.

[campboy]

Do you know what 1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3♦ would be for this pair? If that isn't natural and forcing then I would have to bid as in the OP with Axxx, AQx, Axxxx, x, so I don't think you can say that this sequence must show slam interest. If the Stayman sequence is natural and forcing then what is the difference between the two auctions?

 

I do think bidding on is suggested, since the more partner's values are in hearts and clubs the happier he will be about 3NT and the less likely we are to make 6♦.

[gnasher]

I'd consider 4♥ and 4NT, and would choose 4♥. I wouldn't consider pass.

 

The UI tells us that partner doesn't have a hand like Qx KJx Qxx KJxxx, where 4NT might be in trouble. Hence if pass were a logical alternative I would rule that any other action was illegal.

[Finch]

I would bid 4H, then pass 4NT (if that is what partner bid). I can't see 4NT being in trouble, and we are known to be at least 30-high.

[lamford]

Do you know what 1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3♦ would be for this pair? If that isn't natural and forcing then I would have to bid as in the OP with Axxx, AQx, Axxxx, x, so I don't think you can say that this sequence must show slam interest. If the Stayman sequence is natural and forcing then what is the difference between the two auctions?

 

I do think bidding on is suggested, since the more partner's values are in hearts and clubs the happier he will be about 3NT and the less likely we are to make 6♦.

I don't know what that sequence would be in their methods, as I was only related the hand by the (aggrieved) appellant. I was told that 4D was selected, and the pair reached slam. This was allowed by the TD, and upheld by the AC. The appellant claimed that the pair would not have been able to stop in 4NT after they chose 4D (Blackwoood, pard ...), but I await the official report of the AC to confirm or deny that. I was also told by the appellant that the AC were close to retaining his deposit! (Perhaps TDs present at Stratford can confirm or deny any of these facts).

 

I think bidding on is clearly suggested. A firm 3NT shows concentration in hearts and clubs, softer values such as the pointed suit quacks, and only three diamonds. The slow 3NT suggests that one or more of these are not present, and the player wanted to make a diamond slam try. Unauthorised, big time.

 

So, it boils down to whether Pass is an LA. It is irrelevant that some eminent people such as gnasher and wank think it is automatic to move. I am told that both winners of the A final at Stratford would choose Pass. The AC should poll at least 10 players of comparable standard, and may have done so, but I do not know the results of any poll. The key question is not how safe 4NT would be, nor whether 6D opposite average hands is greater than 50% but what partner was thinking of bidding instead. That can only have been 4D, or a cue bid for diamonds. His actual hand was ♠KJ ♥J82 ♦KQT3 ♣QJ94. His slow 3NT elegantly conveyed primary diamond support, lack of rounded suit concentration, no suitable cue and a worry about playing in 5D rather than 3NT at MPs. Sadly, his arguments, whatever they were, pulled the wool over the eyes of the eminent AC, and, in my opinion, Pass is an LA and moving on is demonstrably suggested.

 

If we were to plug in 4 points in hearts and 5 points in clubs for partner, the type of hand he would have for a brisk 3NT, again with Hxx in diamonds, we now get:

Cont 9 10 11 12 13

S ♦ 0 9 43 43 5

S NT 3 18 38 34 7

 

This tells us that 4NT will indeed only fail 3% of the time, as suggested by several posters, but you will only play there when partner declines the slam try. 6D fails 52% of the time, and 6NT fails 59% of the time. Excuse the poor tabbing (and advice on how to tab correctly would be gratefully received).

 

Now I do not expect the TD or AC to do this research, but I do expect them to poll a significant number of players. Just this forum tells us that Pass is an LA, even though several experts think it is not.

[Vampyr]

I would bid 4H, then pass 4NT (if that is what partner bid). I can't see 4NT being in trouble, and we are known to be at least 30-high.

 

Apparently the pair has no way to get out in 4NT. Not sure what 4NT means in their system.

[Vampyr]

4♥ Kickback

 

I can virtually guarantee that this was not available.

[gnasher]

Apparently the pair has no way to get out in 4NT. Not sure what 4NT means in their system.

If those were my methods, I'd raise to 4NT rather than bidding 4♥. I don't think this is a significant disincentive to bidding.

[aguahombre]

Apparently the pair has no way to get out in 4NT. Not sure what 4NT means in their system.

 

If those were my methods, I'd raise to 4NT rather than bidding 4♥. I don't think this is a significant disincentive to bidding.

Did you really mean you would choose 4NT because you don't know what it means, or because it can't be passed? I don't think 4H could be passed, either.

[gnasher]

Did you really mean you would choose 4NT because you don't know what it means, or because it can't be passed? I don't think 4H could be passed, either.

No. I meant that I'd bid 4NT because it is passable.

 

We were told, I think, that ...-3NT-4♥-4NT or ...-3NT-4♥-4♠-4NT would not be passable. Hence I would avoid the problem by bidding ...-3NT-4NT, which I assume is natural and non-forcing.

[lamford]

If those were my methods, I'd raise to 4NT rather than bidding 4♥. I don't think this is a significant disincentive to bidding.

The problem is that you know (from the UI) that partner will jump to 6♦ if you do that. He (or she, I have no idea who the opponents were) was clearly considering cueing for diamonds, or bidding 4♦, last time. In my view, that is not carefully avoiding taking any advantage from the UI. 4♥ is also a puppet to 6[di} in this partnership's methods of using a slow 3NT instead of a serious or non-serious 3NT to express doubt.

[c_corgi]

Now I do not expect the AC to do this research, but I do expect them to poll a significant number of players. Just this forum tells us that Pass is an LA, even though several experts think it is not.

 

This forum has 8 emphatic bidders, 1 bidder who considered pass and 1 passer who considered it close. I don't think this tells us that pass is an LA, although it doesn't mean it isn't either. This is a situation which requires extremely careful selection of peers. Many of the pollees in this thread - and the winners of the A final to whom you referred - are expert players, but we don't know who the pair at the table was. We do know that they are playing a somewhat unusual system, which may have negative inferences that we are not aware of and that the South hand has made a 3NT call which I suspect few of these expert pollees would have chosen. For many players it may even be that the hesitation does not demonstrably suggest bidding on, being consistent with 3 decent spades, no heart stop, good clubs and no particular suitability for a diamond contract.

 

The news that North chose an action which does not permit getting out in 4NT (I think all the pollees assumed playing 4NT was an option over their try) is the strongest evidence I have seen that passing was an LA, but I think we need all the facts before jumping to conclusions.

[gwnn]

The problem is that you know (from the UI) that partner will jump to 6♦ if you do that. He (or she, I have no idea who the opponents were) was clearly considering cueing for diamonds, or bidding 4♦, last time. In my view, that is not carefully avoiding taking any advantage from the UI. 4♥ is also a puppet to 6[di} in this partnership's methods of using a slow 3NT instead of a serious or non-serious 3NT to express doubt.

Everyone made it clear that for them passing is not an LA, so why are you suggesting that people make a non-LA?

 

edit: cross-posted, sorry c_corgi, and I didn't see there were any passers here

 

edit2: I don't see why 3♠ would imply a slam try barring any special agreements. Normally showing 5 spades, 4+ diamonds and GF is also not necessarily a slam try, but just a search for the best game.

[lamford]

Everyone made it clear that for them passing is not an LA, so why are you suggesting that people make a non-LA?

 

edit: cross-posted, sorry c_corgi, and I didn't see there were any passers here

 

edit2: I don't see why 3♠ would imply a slam try barring any special agreements. Normally showing 5 spades, 4+ diamonds and GF is also not necessarily a slam try, but just a search for the best game.

paulg and nigel_k considered pass an LA, and Trinidad would select it at matchpoints. campboy did not choose a camp. Nigel_K "slightly prefers 4H". Most do not consider Pass an LA, say 8 people.

 

I think we can tell from the 3NT bid that partner is not the sharpest pencil in the box, and moving on is based on a mistrust of the meaning of 3NT and the fact that partner was thinking of cueing for diamonds. Their auction showed 4 spades and 5+ diamonds, not as you state, so I suggest you re-read the OP. Partner will never have 4 spades on this sequence so was not thinking of bidding 4 spades.

 

I agree with c_corgi that we need more information from the AC or TD; perhaps they will post on here.

[campboy]

Excuse the poor tabbing (and advice on how to tab correctly would be gratefully received).

You can get it to work by inserting the table as a code snippet ([code][/code]), though if you do this you won't be able to use suit symbols in it.