diana_eva Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 Your are dealt this fine hand. The bidding goes as shown below. MPs, indy (no special agreements that is). Make one more move or pass it out? [hv=pc=n&s=SK6HAKQ982D7CKQJ9&d=e&v=n&b=18&a=P1HP1SP3CP3NP?]133|200[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 I've sufficiently described my hand and partner made a decision, so I'm done now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manudude03 Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 I pulled it to 4H. For me, the problem is that we don't have the ace of clubs. I was imagining a hand such as Axxx xx Axxx xxx where we make 11-12 tricks in hearts if trumps break depending on what happens in clubs. However, in 3NT on the presumed diamond lead, there would only be 9 tricks if hearts break, and not even that if they don't. Compare the OP hand with Kx AKQ98x x AQJ9 simply changing the CK to the ace. Now 3NT plays quite a bit better and I would probably pass 3NT. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomSac Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 I'd bid 4H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted January 18, 2015 Report Share Posted January 18, 2015 4♥. Completes hand description. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 agree with 4h but I still don't think that does this hand justice. NOt sure what a better option is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasetb Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 I pull it to 4♥, because that completes my hand's description. However, I would have opened 2♣, counting 9 tricks in hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 I pull it to 4♥, because that completes my hand's description. However, I would have opened 2♣, counting 9 tricks in hand.no 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 I'm frankly torn. Maybe 4H makes and 3N is down. Maybe 9 tricks is the limit. Maybe there are 10 tricks whatever I do. On balance, I've tended to pass this type of hand at MPs and been sorry less often than not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahydra Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 This hand has nowhere near 9 playing tricks - more like 7. It would be close to 2C opener, but still not quite, if you swapped SK -> SA or Hx -> HJ. (If playing Benji or similar, one could open it 2C because it is a three-loser hand and as mike777 suggested 1H...3C...4H doesn't quite show it all; but it wouldn't be my choice) Still I don't think we can do more than 4H here, partner can have something useless like QJxxx x KQxx xxx. ahydra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 I'd bid 4♥ in order to keep my partner's mits off dummy. :ph34r: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 I'd bid 4♥ in order to keep my partner's mits off dummy. :ph34r:Won't he then bid 4NT to keep your mits off being declarer? And is it not right to play that 4D is a last-train style slam-try? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 I would bid 4♥ both to complete the description of my hand and because 4♥ is likely to be a better contract than 3NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diana_eva Posted January 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 Thanks all. 4♥ was right on this hand. If you do that, pd will raise to a making 6♥. I passed it out at the table, blinded by the matchpointitis myth of 3NT >>> whatever. Here's the full deal: [hv=pc=n&s=SK6HAKQ982D7CKQJ9&w=SJT84HT54DJ54CA85&n=SA532HJ3DAQ63CT73&e=SQ97H76DKT982C642&d=e&v=n]399|300[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 I don't know about various people's styles of bidding and so on, but I think that dummy was awful strong to be offering a sign off in 3NT. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diana_eva Posted January 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 I don't know about various people's styles of bidding and so on, but I think that dummy was awful strong to be offering a sign off in 3NT. Maybe, but he didn't even need the ♦Q for slam. Two Aces with ♥Jx was plenty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 Maybe, but he didn't even need the ♦Q for slam. Two Aces with ♥Jx was plenty. Yeah, precisely. Two bullets and Jx of trumps and Txx of partners 2nd suit are quite enough to make me wary of 3NT. Never mind the q♦ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggwhiz Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 I'd bid 4♥ in order to keep my partner's mits off dummy. :ph34r: 100% Somebody that noticed that this hand is from an Indy. Mildly surprising that the key is giving partner a 2nd chance to look at their hand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomSac Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 This hand has nowhere near 9 playing tricks - more like 7. How do you figure this hand to be worth 7 tricks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 I understand partner's desire to bid nt, because your weakest collective suit is diamonds and partner has the positional stop in diamonds. So grabbing NT is reasonable. Treating the hand like xxxx xx AQxx xxx which also might bid 3nt seems bad. A natural 4nt call is surely better than a 3nt call with this rich responding hand, although a slower route might also be ok/better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuhchung Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 I think 3NT should show a hand like QJxx x KQxxx xxx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Partner's 3NT is the worst bid of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Partner's 3NT is the worst bid of the year.Let me put money down: Csaba has not played in an Individual tournament this year, yet. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 This hand has nowhere near 9 playing tricks - more like 7.I think you might be confused about PTs. This does not mean you think you have this many tricks! The forumlae as laid down in the 40s are quite complicated, most notably for Responder's PTs but in essence you count trumps length winners on the scale: 4 card suit = 1 PT5 card suit = 2 PT6 card suit = 3 PT7 card suit = 4 PT8 card suit = 6 PT (+1 PT per additional card) For a side suit you count 1 PT less with 0.5 PT for a 4 card suit. Then you look at the honours not counted as length winners and ascribe PTs to them using the HT listings adjusted for obvious cases (so KQJ = 2 and QJT = 1, for example) So spades = 0.5 PT; hearts = 6 PT (3 + 3); diamonds = 0 PT; clubs = 1.5+ PT (a + is somewhere between 0.25 and 0.5) The result is that is probably an Acol 2 rather than a traditional 2♣ hand. It is certainly nothing like 7 PT though! Since many modern players include some Acol 2♥ hands within their 2♣ opening, I could easily imagine it being opened 2♣ at some tables. In the UK, France or Germany, where 2♣ is often Benji, I would expect a 2♣ opening to be common. I also second the motion that 3NT is pretty bad but not exceptionally so for an indi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts