[Double !]

mike777, on Jan 7 2006, 11:58 PM, said:

Hey buddy!
typical problem opening 4333 with 15 hcp and no tens?

As I said I object.

dere's de Ten of Diamonds

[Echognome]

mike777, on Jan 8 2006, 04:58 AM, said:

Hey buddy!
typical problem opening 4333 with 15 hcp and one ten?

As I said I object.

I don't understand why you are objecting to the problem. Fine, for you it goes:

(P) - 1♣ - (3♥) - X
(P) - ?

And you have a similar decision. You may not agree with the opening, but I don't see how it greatly affects your bidding decision.

I personally would have opened 1NT since it's our agreed range, although I understand those that downgrade.

I would have bid 3NT even though it wouldn't have been a success here. It will usually be our best game.

[mike777]

I think my pass over 1c=3h=x is pretty easy.....but ok...if you disagree and I respect that.

I also think not all 15 hcp balanced hands are worth an opening 1nt and object if that is what my partner assumes is our agreement. . but I respect if you disagree.

As I said if forced to open 1nt then I bid 3nt and go down

[FrancesHinden]

luke warm, on Jan 7 2006, 02:21 PM, said:

for the passers, we're vulnerable, it's imps... how do you better players compute those odds? i'm interested in the thought processes... mine are (and i'm not one of the better players) "they probably have 9 troumps, if we're making 3nt they're off 2 at 3H... that's 600 vs. 500, or about 3 imps... on the other hand, if they're making 3H i'm off 2, and the only danger is if they double us and we lose 4 imps.. we could both be off, that would be a tragedy, but i think i'll bid 3nt"

This logic doesn't really hold. You can't use the size of their trump fit to work out how many total tricks there are when one of the contracts is 3NT.

One of the things that tempts me into 3NT is the worry that both 3H and 3NT are making. For example, swap North and East's clubs and diamonds, giving East the 10 of diamonds instead of the 9.

At matchpoints I think 3NT is clear, but (in spite of what I wrote above) I think it's very close at IMPs, as 3Hx is unlikely to be making.

[P_Marlowe]

luke warm, on Jan 7 2006, 08:21 AM, said:

mr1303, on Jan 6 2006, 12:44 PM, said:

The only realistic alternative is 4C

why isn't 'pass' realistic?

for the passers, we're vulnerable, it's imps... how do you better players compute those odds? i'm interested in the thought processes... mine are (and i'm not one of the better players) "they probably have 9 troumps, if we're making 3nt they're off 2 at 3H... that's 600 vs. 500, or about 3 imps... on the other hand, if they're making 3H i'm off 2, and the only danger is if they double us and we lose 4 imps.. we could both be off, that would be a tragedy, but i think i'll bid 3nt"

Hi,


I think you got the vul. wrong.
If you beat them -2, that will only
be 300 since they are green and
we are red, in other words it will
be 600 vs. 300.

Marlowe

[Fluffy]

I missclicked on 3♠ instead of 3NT, but it seems 4♠ makes, so I am happy

[mike777]

"This logic doesn't really hold. You can't use the size of their trump fit to work out how many total tricks there are when one of the contracts is 3NT."

LOTT does try to do this. Cohen and Bergen claim it works often but many may disagree and in fact the logic may not really hold up.

On this hand LOTT says total tricks in NT equal the number of hearts by opponents, assumed to be 9 since partner is assumed to be 4=1=4=4. You always add 7 (not 9) tricks automatically assuming 3nt will make. 9+7=16 total tricks.

16-9 tricks in 3nt equals 7 tricks in hearts.

[luke warm]

yes, i did have the vulnerability wrong... as for frances' post, mike answered that.. anytime nt is the contract, assume 7 trumps for lott purposes..