more damn diamonds

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa85hk94d43ckj832&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=2s3d3s?]133|200[/hv]

[the hog]

3NT

[mikeh]

3N

 

It's a dirty job but someone has to do it. You can probably hold up in spades enough to sever the communications, and hope to establish a minor without letting W back on lead. 11 tricks is a long way away when you hold xx in diamonds and no ruffing values.

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa85hk94d43ckj832&w=sqt9642hj32djcqt6&n=sj7haq6dakqt

2c97&e=sk3ht875d9876ca54&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=2s3d3sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

The full hand. I'm not sure the vulnerable 2♠ is to my liking, but it sure worked.

[SteveMoe]

Following Mikeh and hog, 3N.

Too strong for pass, wrong shape for double and for 4[clubs, so let's invoke Hamman's Rule.

[mikeh]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa85hk94d43ckj832&w=sqt9642hj32djcqt6&n=sj7haq6dakqt

2c97&e=sk3ht875d9876ca54&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=2s3d3sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

The full hand. I'm not sure the vulnerable 2♠ is to my liking, but it sure worked.

Pass ought not to be in your vocabulary in this sort of auction. I am not suggesting double here, since I voted for 3N and thought it clear, but let's say your hand was xxx AKx xx KJxxx. You just can't let them play here undoubled. Partner has a sound opening bid to come in at the 3-level so you know you have the values for game and you have at least one 8 card fit, so you need to tell partner that you have values...that the hand belongs to your side but you have no clear direction.

 

That's exactly what double should mean. It shows hand ownership and doubt as to where to play. Partner is allowed to convert but he will usually takeout. You're happy either way.

 

This aproach isn't always going to work. There will be some hands on which double leads to -730 rather than -140, or gets you to a bad contract. But the smart money says that you will do better, on average, getting involved when you hold the significant majority of the hcp.

 

 

In the old days, double here was penalty, but few players would treat it as such these days. In the not-so-old days, double might show 4+ hearts, and certainly partner will often bid 4♥ here with say 4=6 reds and that might be tough to play. But you can't pass.

 

Here, fortunately, 3N is available to bid.

[neilkaz]

3nt for me happily able to hold up my ace ♠ til the 3rd round.

[Phil]

3N is definitely not obvious.

[Charlie Yu]

axe it white/red, otherwise 3NT.

[Phil]

3N is definitely not obvious.

 

(expounding)

 

There is a mindset among bridge players that goes like this:

 

Inputs:

 

- partner competes in a minor

- we have a good hand

- we have a stopper in their suit

 

Output:

 

- 3N

 

-----

 

For 3N to be right, we need one of the following to work:

 

1. Running diamonds

2. Enough diamond tricks and keep LHO off the lead.

3. Running clubs and enough side suit tops.

4. 5 (or 6) of a minor is not superior.

 

Here, I would say partner's likely shapes are 1=3=6=3 and 1=2=6=4. I would not expect a spade void across. Hands with a doubleton spade are possible against aggressive opponents, or with a RHO with some kind of shape or surprise. I would not expect four hearts with partner, but 1=4=6=2 is possible. 2362 with 7 tricks is not on the spectrum for a 3♦ call - 3♠ is clear.

 

When partner has short diamonds, it is incumbent for them to act. How would you like to play 3N across from x AQx KJTxxx xxx? Sure, add in the ♣A and its back to reasonable, but the ♣Q really isn't enough. Furthermore, why does 3N have to be the right spot when partner has a great hand? x Ax KQJxxx Axxx is a 6♣ contract I'd like to be in, and 3N is in jeopardy of failing.

 

There are some hands where I would prefer to be in 3N. x Axx AKTxxx xxx is the right kind of example. I have a good chance of avoiding diamonds into RHO and establishing a slow club trick, However even if you improve this hand slightly, 5 of a minor is just as good and 6m comes into context.

 

In the end, I would prefer a responsive double. I'll let pard tough it out in a Moysian 4♥ (many of the same play principles in the 4-3 will apply as 3N), and I will raise 4♣ to 5♣. Over a 4♠ call by partner, I'll try 5N PAS. Over 4♦, I'll pass and apologize if its wrong.

[Phil]

In Palm Springs yesterday I picked up:

 

AJx AKTx xx Q8xx. While I miscounted and opened 1N, I heard:

 

1N - (2♦*) - 3♦ - (3♠);

?

 

*majors

 

And bid 3N - after all, partner could have solid diamonds, or I might be able to keep RHO off lead.

 

Regrettably, partner held xx xx KQJxxxx xx and felt this was a GF. I couldn't really blame her.

[mikeh]

3N is definitely not obvious.

Do you think that there is any call that seems better than 3N?

 

The point being, as I know you know but this is the I/A thread, that we are frequently confronted with situations to which there is no one 'obvious' answer but, instead, a choice to be made between 2 or more plausible alternatives.

 

Imo, this is such a situation, and 3N, tho obviously imperfect, is the least bad of the options and hence is the correct call.

 

The options being, in no particular order:

 

Pass: on a hand on which we rate to hold approximately game values and where partner is unlikely to act again, this seems to me to be just waving the white flag.

 

Double: if takeout or action, this is more palatable than Pass, but the odds seem to be good that if we make 4minor, we may make 3N. Even more so if we make 5m. And in the meantime, this isn't a hand on which I want to play 4♥

 

4♦: even tho partner rates to hold 6♦, raising on xx seems misdirected. In addition, or perhaps as part of why it seems misdirected, we can't get to 3N from 4♦.

 

3N: rates to make most of the time. Rates to be bad when it doesn't make. Doesn't absolutely rule out other games or slams. Big rewards when right, and rates to be right more often than not.

[Phil]

 

3N: rates to make most of the time.

 

.....Doesn't absolutely rule out other games or slams.

 

 

orly?

[the hog]

3N is definitely not obvious.

 

Yes it is. What else do you have in mind, a double? That is not a great call.

[the hog]

In Palm Springs yesterday I picked up:

 

AJx AKTx xx Q8xx. While I miscounted and opened 1N, I heard:

 

1N - (2♦*) - 3♦ - (3♠);

?

 

*majors

 

And bid 3N - after all, partner could have solid diamonds, or I might be able to keep RHO off lead.

 

Regrettably, partner held xx xx KQJxxxx xx and felt this was a GF. I couldn't really blame her.

 

How on earth can you use this as an example when

a) You have misbid

b) Partner's hand evaluation is poor?

 

For heaven's sakes, Phil, the op's partner bid 3D. This figures to be a reasonable hand and not a pile of crap.

[rmnka447]

3 NT -- Partner has presumably shown opening plus values. Following the old saw -- "If 3 NT is a logical alternative in an auction, it probably should be bid." Can't recall who coined it -- think it was Hamman or Wolff -- but over the years, it has come up time and again. In the vast majority of auctions, it has proved to be very wise advice.