TMorris Posted August 5, 2015 Report Share Posted August 5, 2015 All red at matchpoints. The bidding with opponents quiet has gone 1♦ 1♠2♣ 2♥(FSF but not to game)3♣ 3NT 1♦ promised at least 4 cards You have 10xQAJ10xxAKJxx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted August 5, 2015 Report Share Posted August 5, 2015 Not me. No indication of a fit or of extra strength with partner. I showed my 55, he wants to play 3NT, who am I to argue? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted August 5, 2015 Report Share Posted August 5, 2015 All red at matchpoints. You have ♠ 10 x ♥ Q ♦ A J 10 x x ♣ A K J x xThe bidding with opponents quiet has gone1♦ 1♠2♣ 2♥(FSF but not to game)3♣ 3NT1♦ promised at least 4 cards I rankPass = NAT. Partner might be expressing doubt but ♥Q should help.4♠ = NAT. OK, since partner should have long ♠s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinksy Posted August 5, 2015 Report Share Posted August 5, 2015 No. On second thoughts, with the benefit of further reflection, No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted August 5, 2015 Report Share Posted August 5, 2015 No. On second thoughts, with the benefit of further reflection, No. Your position is short-sighted. You obviously did not consider Hell No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmnka447 Posted August 5, 2015 Report Share Posted August 5, 2015 No!! You told your story and partner decided to bid 3 NT. Bidding on is a breach of partnership trust. If 3 NT goes down, the onus is on partner. If you bid on, the onus for whatever happens is on you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted August 5, 2015 Report Share Posted August 5, 2015 No. On second thoughts, with the benefit of further reflection, No.That's the line of the eye chart I can read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMorris Posted August 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2015 Thanks - that was my view as well. This was a hesitation situation, the 3NT was bid very very slowly and the auction then went 5♣ 6♣ making for a zero the 3NT bidder had AJxxA10xQxQxxx and K of diamonds was onside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 No Brainerd adjustment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillPatch Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 No Brainerd adjustment.Director Branerd may not adjust, but the committee will surely overrule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 No brainerd is an oxymoron. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gszes Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 This is way too close for me to call- If I held the heart x and *AQJTx dia I am absolutely bidding --depending on partnership methods-- 4c/4n/5c). The problem here is opener had to way underbid with 3c since responder could have been a min invite with or w/o hearts stopped. Once responder bid 3n over our non forcing 3c we know opener has close to opening values + and it is certainly reasonable to give an extra nudge with a hand that is close to a full ace stronger than I needed for the previous bidding. This worry wart attitude about losing in the post mortem is horribly anti partnership when it limits thinking in our fine game. Once in a while bidding beyond 3n will be wrong but there are many ways to win* by bidding on and only a few small ways to lose. This being MP makes the concept of bidding beyond 3n scarier. The fact that I would downgrade the heart Q enough and pass 3n this particular hand does not mean I think bidding beyond 3n is horrific in any way shape or form. Now when it comes to U/I we have a different story -- The long hesitation creates obvious problems for opener since passing at MP is so obvious the hesitation strongly suggests 3n is not the bid of choice but something else is. That mere fact (along with the singleton heart and above mentioned extra values strongly suggests that 3n is not really the best spot and bidding something more would be beneficial to the partnership. Opener did not treat the U/I aspect of the problem with proper respect and took a bid that seems to take advantage of the U/I BUT IT IS CLOSE. Do not ask me what i think of the 3n bid:) with extra time to think about it no less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullve Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 a hand that is close to a full ace stronger than I needed for the previous bidding. That's an understatement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 gszes' analysis is valid about the nature of the 4sf (not g.f.) methods used by this partnership. If opener had chosen a quant 4nt instead of pass, I would accept it; who knows what would happen after that. The actual choice of 5♣ is beyond the pale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts