3NT - finesse or not

[kgr]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sa62haj862d8542c3&s=sjt74hk75daq9ckq5]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Bidding (opps always pass):

1NT-2♦

2♥-3NT

Pass

 

I thought when partner had enough to bid 3NT then 3NT would play as good as 4♥. (After 2NT I would have bid 3♥).

Would you have bid 4♥? If yes: can you imagine a hand with 3-card support where you would stay in 3NT?

 

Lead was ♣T taken with my K (RHO plays the 6).

I now played ♥K (4,2 and 3 are falling under it).

And then I finessed ♥ by playing ♥ to the J.

My partner said after the play it is better not to finesse the ♥ so that RHO does not get the lead (to play ♣) in case he has ♥Q2, but is that true? I don't yet have 9 tricks and 5 tricks in ♥ would help me to get there. Finessing would give me the best change to get there. If I only get 4 tricks in ♥ then RHO will get the lead sometime anyway to play through my ♣.

.... Do you finesse or not?

[helene_t]

In general, I would prefer 4♥ even with a 4333-shape since responder may be unballanced. In this case, with all those honours in the short side suits, I can understand your pass on 3NT.

 

BTW, I'm not sure if I would consider this hand strong enough for a 1NT (15-17) opening.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

no I would have bid 4H.

 

My rule is simple, if we have a 8 card mayor

suit fit, we play the mayor.

Even if not following this rule, in the current situation:

partner did ask about 3 card support for hearts, you

have it, show the support, you have no clue, what

partners hand may look like, in contrast to your partner,

who knows your hand pretty well.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: In rare situations partner could still be interested

in slam, in case he finds a mayor suit fit.

[Gerben42]

I disagree with 3NT from north, he should bid 3♦. Not to suggest a trump suit but to warn partner that his hand is suit-oriented. How else can south make an informed decision? I pass 3NT expecting a balanced hand from partner.

 

About the play: Counting tricks you will find out that if you make only 4♥ you will need two from both minors. This means simply that if you lose a ♥ trick that the ♣A must be with East.

 

So the best play to make 3NT is take the percentage play in ♥ which is to finesse. If West has ♣A and ♥Qxx and you play ♥K, ♥A, ♦ to Q and ♥ you will still go down as West will simply return a non-♣.

[whereagles]

Bidding is fine. A bit agricultural, but passable.

 

I would have finessed as well.

[Walddk]

BTW, I'm not sure if I would consider this hand strong enough for a 1NT (15-17) opening.

Not sure I understand. One of us must have miscounted, and I don't think it's me.

 

Roland

[helene_t]

Counted? What has hand evaluation to do with counting? Not sure I understand ....

[coyot]

Yep... any 15 balanced is worth opening 1NT B). maybe with a few exceptions like having 4432 with Qxx and KJ in the last two suits... but generally when I get 15, I open it.

 

To answer the original question: Since 4♥ needs both red finesses to work, while 3NT has the additional chance to make with club ace onside, I would finesse hearts and then diamonds. If the diamond finesse fails, LHO may still err by playing a club for me (not seeing the queen). If heart finesse fails, I was in a hopeless contract but I don't really care as 4♥ goes down as well.

[Blofeld]

I agree with helene in that I don't much like it (4333 shape, few fitting values, just one ace), but I still think that I'd open it 1NT (the bigger question is whether I'd stretch it down to open 1NT playing 12-14). I'd also pass 3NT. I agree with Gerben: North should not have bid 3NT with such a suit-oriented hand.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

asking North to bid 3D at his 2nd turn is

ridiculous, I would use stronger words,

but there may be children out there.

 

North's diamond suit is not existing, i.e. he

has no business introducing the suit.

 

If you require North to bid always diamonds

you will most of the time help only the opponents

in their search for an lead.

 

As a side note: Bidding 3D opposite a unknown

partner is aksing for trouble, because he may pass.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

I don't think partner would pass 3♦ (unless he's unsure if we play transfers or not) but he might bid 4♦.

[coyot]

3♦ bid is strange, no doubt about it. Offering 4 spot cards? If partner has 2 hearts and 3 diamonds, I'm now playing the same 3NT but will even less chances to make.

 

Anyway, I just looked at the heart hand well - and I would NOT bid 3NT with it B). 2NT is perfect. I have 9HCP with no fit guaranteed and I don't want to end up in a 3NT on 24 HCP. I trust my partner to correct to 3♥ if he has 3card in hearts and good suit-contract values.

I.e. 3 aces and king are an obvious 15HCP correction to 3♥, or an empty doubleton... so I will find 3NT or 4♥ on brute force and I will find 4♥ on most suitable 15HCP hands as well.

[whereagles]

There's nothing wrong with 3D instead of 3NT. It's just a matter of style.

[coyot]

There's nothing wrong with 3D instead of 3NT. It's just a matter of style.

What exactly does the 3♦ bid convey according to your style?

 

Is it a game-try with willingness to play 3♥ on 5-2 fit? Or it is GF? And do you expect partner to bid 3NT with small diamond doubleton (thinking that you're stopping that suit? Or to bid 4♥ with 3card support and diamond king?

[whereagles]

I don't know what american text books say about

 

1NT 2♦

2♥ 3m

 

but in the books I read it showed a game forcing hand with 5-4 shape. According to that definition, 3♦ on the hand given originally is perfectly normal, even with a broken suit. Pard is now supposed to bid 3/4♥ with fit max/min, bid a a stopper at the 3-level with heart misfit (or 3NT with both side suits well stopped) or drive on to the 4-level with excellent diamond fit and a max. If the hands are

 

♠ KQxx.......Axx

♥ Kx...........AJxxx

♦ AKxx........xxxx

♣ xxx..........x

 

there's no reason to play 3NT if you can bid it like

 

1NT 2♦

2♥ 3♦

3♠ 4♦

5♦

 

Of course.. if opener has another hand, all this "precise" bidding ends up in 3NT anyway, and the defense can pick the correct lead more easily.

 

Which is why I say to bid 3NT (the pragmatic bid) or 3♦ (the unlucky expert's bid) is a matter of style. B)

[coyot]

I don't know what american text books say about

 

1NT 2♦

2♥ 3m

 

but in the books I read it showed a game forcing hand with 5-4 shape. According to that definition, 3♦ on the hand given originally is perfectly normal, even with a broken suit. Pard is now supposed to bid 3/4♥ with fit max/min, bid a a stopper at the 3-level with heart misfit (or 3NT with both side suits well stopped) or drive on to the 4-level with excellent diamond fit and a max. If the hands are

 

♠ KQxx.......Axx

♥ Kx...........AJxxx

♦ AKxx........xxxx

♣ xxx..........x

 

there's no reason to play 3NT if you can bid it like

 

1NT 2♦

2♥ 3♦

3♠ 4♦

5♦

 

Of course.. if opener has another hand, all this "precise" bidding ends up in 3NT anyway, and the defense can pick the correct lead more easily.

 

Which is why I say to bid 3NT (the pragmatic bid) or 3♦ (the unlucky expert's bid) is a matter of style. B)

You're basically forcing partner into 24HCP no-fit game or suggesting to offer 8xxx in diamonds TWICE???

 

I don't think the hand qualifies as gameforcing, but even so, if I open 1NT and p transfers and then bids diamonds twice, I'll happily raise him with third honor... I will never expect such a garbage hand :).

 

So, for me the pragmatic bid is 2NT and the expert bid is 2NT as well :). If I occasionally miss 3NT, I don't care. If I very occasionally miss 5♦ that needs a lot of help, I don't care...

 

The example you showed above is about the most optimistic 15HCP hand you could expect and still quite likely fails on a trump lead (and you can BET it will come when opps hear that you don't want to play 3NT :)

[whereagles]

coyot, you asked me how I play 1N-2D-2H-3D, and I told you.

 

The examples I gave were merely elucidative of the point I wanted to make. Whether or not you evaluate responder's hand to be enough for a game force is a completely different matter.

[coyot]

coyot, you asked me how I play 1N-2D-2H-3D, and I told you.

 

The examples I gave were merely elucidative of the point I wanted to make. Whether or not you evaluate responder's hand to be enough for a game force is a completely different matter.

OK, sorry to push... but your example suggest that you will rebid the diamonds twice with an empty four-card - which is indeed strange to me.

[whereagles]

Well, if the hearts were stronger, say AQJxx, responder might try 4H to suggest the 5-2 fit. As it is, a rebid of 4D is probably the lesser evil.

 

But of course, that depends on your style and/or evaluation of the hand. If you prefer to bid 2/3NT after the transfer, that problem won't arise B)

[mike777]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sa62haj862d8542c3&s=sjt74hk75daq9ckq5]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Bidding (opps always pass):

1NT-2♦

2♥-3NT

Pass

 

I thought when partner had enough to bid 3NT then 3NT would play as good as 4♥. (After 2NT I would have bid 3♥).

Would you have bid 4♥? If yes: can you imagine a hand with 3-card support where you would stay in 3NT?

 

Lead was ♣T taken with my K (RHO plays the 6).

I now played ♥K (4,2 and 3 are falling under it).

And then I finessed ♥ by playing ♥ to the J.

My partner said after the play it is better not to finesse the ♥ so that RHO does not get the lead (to play ♣) in case he has ♥Q2, but is that true? I don't yet have 9 tricks and 5 tricks in ♥ would help me to get there. Finessing would give me the best change to get there. If I only get 4 tricks in ♥ then RHO will get the lead sometime anyway to play through my ♣.

.... Do you finesse or not?

Cool everyday hand. Lot of meat here.

1) I thought your bidding was fine. Perhaps most important point was to remain composed and concentrate on the next hand.

2) Try a forcing 3D rebid next time and compare results and see which one makes you happier.

3) I would force to game with 14-16NT, heck 23 hcp and no fit, no super accept, why not? This is imps yes? Just bid the darn game and give us a chance to improve our declarer play.

[mikeh]

For me the bidding is fine.

 

The reality is that each partner has a minimum for the action, so the contract is marginal. Big Deal! If this is the worst contract that you ever reach, you do not bid enough.

 

It seems clear from the post that the ♥finesse lost and the ♣ A was in the wrong hand. Ok, for those of you who think that either partner overbid, reverse the EW hands and play 2N! Let's see: 5♥ tricks, 2♣ tricks, two pointed Aces and chances in both ♦ and ♠ for extra tricks.

 

2N by partner over 2♥ is silly. He has 2 Aces, folks! He has strength in his long suit! Aces are significantly under-valued in the 4321 count (K's also, to a lesser degree, while Q's and J's are over-valued).

 

3♦ would be even siller. Imagine catching opener with Kxx Kx AJxx AQ10x

 

Try keeping a competent imp player out of slam over 3♦!

 

Or Jxx Kx AKxx AQxx: try reaching 3N now.

 

3♦ is an offer to play in game or slam in a red suit: including that well-known red suit, ♦! Does North really want to suggest an 11 trick (or higher) ♦ contract?

 

The problem with polls like this one is that we all have a tendency to distort our choices because we 'know' that the correct bid or play did not work, and we try to rationalize making a choice that would work on the given hand.

 

BTW, take the ♥ hook. It is your best chance to make, and as others have posted, those in 4♥ will be no better off than you.... and if your opps miss game, don't worry... you'll probably beat them anyway.

[kgr]

..♥ finesse did loose to Q (RHO had Qx).

To my surprise RHO did return a small ♦ on which I played the 9, loosing to J of LHO. LHO did play ♦ 6 for K and A.

I did now cash 3 ♥ tricks, throwing 2 ♠'s. (RHO did throw 3 ♠'s; LHO 2 ♣'s).

And then I played ♦ to my Q on which LHO did threw ♣A !

LHO was left with ♠KQ ♣A92. If he does not throw the ♣A he would get a throw in with ♠Q (..maybe).

[1eyedjack]

Bidding seems OK to me. I can sympathise with 2N rebid by responder, but would punt game myself. Having shown the hearts, the singleton club is the next most relevant feature of responder's hand, but you need the mechanism to show it (which do exist). Ironically that may steer you even faster into 3NT (which seems to have at least as good chances as 4H). Temporising with 3D has the advantage that you may find a 5-3 Spade fit if one exists, which would be lost if you go straight to 3N after transfer.

 

If responder habitually rebids 3NT with a side suit singleton then I would be inclined as opener to convert back to 4H with 3 card support. But if responder can be relied upon to be balanced then I would also have left it with the 4333 hand. E Torbjorn Lindeloef did some sort of computer simulation in support of the design of Cobra back at around the turn of the 80s. I never saw the underlying data but he firmly concluded that you should play in 3N with a 5-3 major fit when both hands are balanced. Does not seem to get much support these days.

 

As to the play, the comment about keeping the danger hand off lead is relevant if you only need 4 Heart tricks for the contract. Here you have little chance without bringing in the Hearts for no losers (despite what actually happened), so I would go for the isolated percentage play in Hearts, which is to finesse. It risks going a lot more down. At MatchPoints if you reckon that 1-down is a salvagable result then you might go for the safety I guess.

[coyot]

E Torbjorn Lindeloef did some sort of computer simulation in support of the design of Cobra back at around the turn of the 80s. I never saw the underlying data but he firmly concluded that you should play in 3N with a 5-3 major fit when both hands are balanced. Does not seem to get much support these days.

 

As to the play, the comment about keeping the danger hand off lead is relevant if you only need 4 Heart tricks for the contract. Here you have little chance without bringing in the Hearts for no losers (despite what actually happened), so I would go for the isolated percentage play in Hearts, which is to finesse. It risks going a lot more down. At MatchPoints if you reckon that 1-down is a salvagable result then you might go for the safety I guess.

It gets some support B)... i.e. a lot of people I know play 1M-3NT as 12-15 balanced with 3card support.

[mikeh]

Temporising with 3D has the advantage that you may find a 5-3 Spade fit if one exists, which would be lost if you go straight to 3N after transfer.

 

I never saw the underlying data but he firmly concluded that you should play in 3N with a 5-3 major fit when both hands are balanced. Does not seem to get much support these days.

 

I doubt that many players use the sequence 1N 2♦ 2♥ 3♦ 3♠ to show a 5 card ♠ suit B)

 

It is more common, I think, to play 3♠ as an ambiguous bid, showing with either concern about the unbid suit (intending to pass 3N should responder bid it) or a good hand in support of responder's second suit: intending to pull 3N to show a forward-going hand with a fit. This approach is far more practical than hoping that responder, who is at least 5-4 and often 5-5 in the reds, can raise ♠.

 

As for playing 3N with a 5-3 major fit, in the games in which I play, this is common on 1N - transfer auctions: opener is expected to use judgement, and often times 9 tricks are easier than 10. And sometimes you can score 9 tricks in NT when a bad trump break dooms the suit contract. Personally, I usually pass 3N with balanced hands containing stoppers outside, and bid the major only with an unstopped side suit or a ruffing value in my hand. I am also more inclined to pass 3N with extras than with a minimum: because possession of the extras increases the likelihood of nine tricks on power and diminshes the chances of their small/intermediate trumps becoming a nuisance should they be able to score ruffs or have trump break badly. On the given hand, I would pass despite being minimum because of the slow nature of my hand, the possession of stoppers and the lack of ruffing values