[gwnn]

I really hate my clubs.

I must be an optimist (or junior), but I have no doubt about 4♥. I have serious doubts, however, about making 3NT or even if we make it, I think 4♥ will get us more tricks (we might have only 1 club stop so no time to establish spades yada yada yada).

Make my club holding KQx (eliminating some other hcp from hand) and I think I bid 3NT @ MP. I'm adamant about 4♥ in IMP, though.

[dake50]

When 9 tricks is the limit, I want 3NT.

[inquiry]

Hannie, on Mar 17 2007, 10:44 PM, said:

This is very interesting, nobody thinks that the form of scoring matters, but there is no agreement about what is better.. 3NT or 4H.

4♥ is better. First it is the safer contract as I find it impossible that 10 tricks can't be made in hearts, but bad things might happen in say clubs for notrump.

In addition, we might lose 2♠ plus another trick in notrump, while losing just 1 spade and the other trick in spades. So there is no guaratnee that 3NT will win an extra trick either. There are hands where I would bid 3NT over raising to 4♥ at MP compared to imps. This is not one, as I said much earlier.

[mikeh]

4♥ seemed clear to me at all forms of scoring. I did a short simulation (40 deals), based on partner having 6-7♥s, no other 4+ suit, and 15-17 hcp... I am sure that there are other hands that would be bid 1♥ 3♥, but this seemed a reasonable set of constraints. I had to throw out a few hands where the opps would probably/certainly have bid. The result was closer than I would have thought, with 3N actually making on a few hands where 4♥ failed: usually on a ♠ ruff.


But there were slightly more hands on which 3N went down: a typical dummy was Kx in ♣s, with RHO winning a trick at some point to push a ♣ through.

This seems to confirm my immediate thought that 4♥ was the better imp bid, altho not as clearly as I had expected.

3N at mps was even closer. There was a significant subset where I could not be confident that the outcome was predictable: opening leader appeared to have reasonable choices, and the result depended on the lead.. in terms of overtricks, usually. On balance, where the opening lead and subsequent play seemed fairly easy to predict, 4♥ was a narrow winner.

So I think I would stay with my gut: 4♥. But, at mps, needing a swing, 3N looks ok.♥

[mikeh]

I was intrigued by my short sample, which indicated that 3N was not as bad a call as my gut instinct had suggested, so I did a larger sample. The constraints, again, were that opener had 15-17 hcp with 6-7 ♥s and no side 4 card suit. I rejected a number of hands, including ones with very weak ♥s. I also excluded some 15 counts that others might accept, and weeded out hands on which I felt the outcome was too uncertain.

The result of about 75 more hands that made it through surprised me even more.

As one would expect with responder holding a soft 12 count, including Qx♥s, most hands made both games. But 3N made, with 4♥ failing, as often as vice versa, so on this sample, there was no edge to bidding 4♥ at imps.

As for mps, this larger sample revealed that 3N had a significant edge: on most hands, both contracts rated to score the same number of tricks, but responder's hand often gained from the opening lead coming around to it. Quite often that lead rated to be in ♦s.. altho a ♣ lead was the most common. Even then, when dummy held the ♣Ax(x), more times than not, the ♣ lead either lost a trick for the defence or broke even. Only a few hands were generated in which the contract was lost, or rendered inferior, by the ♣ layout. In fact, 3N wsa the winner 2-1!

So on an overall sample of a little over 100 hands, 3N was a significant winner at mps and came very close to breaking even at imps.

Now, it seemed to me that allowing a 3♥ call on a not-so-great 15 count would tend to tilt the scores towards 4♥, since the main reason 3N is solid is that my constructions assume a goodish 15-17 hcp, and the more overstrength we are, the more 3N rates to win.

[Winstonm]

Quote

As one would expect with responder holding a soft 12 count, including Qx♥s, most hands made both games. But 3N made, with 4♥ failing, as often as vice versa, so on this sample, there was no edge to bidding 4♥ at imps.

There is another consideration at imps - what is the bid at the other table? If both games make there is little to no swing; however, if one is making and the other is going down, there is a huge swing to guessing right - but here, again due to the club holding, I would expect 4H to be the "normal" bid and if it went down to be a push - if I bid 3N instead of 4H and go set, I expect a big loss.

[han]

Winstonm, on Mar 19 2007, 09:21 PM, said:

Quote

As one would expect with responder holding a soft 12 count, including Qx♥s, most hands made both games. But 3N made, with 4♥ failing, as often as vice versa, so on this sample, there was no edge to bidding 4♥ at imps.

There is another consideration at imps - what is the bid at the other table? If both games make there is little to no swing; however, if one is making and the other is going down, there is a huge swing to guessing right - but here, again due to the club holding, I would expect 4H to be the "normal" bid and if it went down to be a push - if I bid 3N instead of 4H and go set, I expect a big loss.

And if 3NT makes and 4H goes down then it would be a huge gain?

What is your point, shouldn't we make the bid that we think is right?

Don't get me wrong, I think 4H is right (especially at IMPs, closer at MPs) but I don't get your point (back to the old ways).

[Fluffy]

Hannie, on Mar 18 2007, 03:44 AM, said:

This is very interesting, nobody thinks that the form of scoring matters, but there is no agreement about what is better.. 3NT or 4H.

I do, but I voted for the monkey wich looked prettier.

Actually I would bid 3NT for sure at MPs, and would find it more difficult at IMPs. I am closer to 3NT both though.

[Codo]

Funnily the vote was for 3 NT, the posting more for 4 ♥. I voted 3 NT for two reasons:
1. You have 27 to 30 HCPS and I learned that with so much pure power, 3 NT often is the better game- you normally have everything stopped and there are no ruffs.
2. You cannot have softer values then in your example hand, which tends to be better for NT then for suit play.

[jdeegan]

Jlall, on Mar 19 2007, 11:14 AM, said:

3N could just be a complete disaster. It's hard to construct hands where 4H goes down as opposed to hands where 3N goes down, so at imps I would definitely bid 4H. It's not hard for me to construct hands where hearts just makes 1 trick more even if both games are making, so I would also bid 4H at MP.

4♥, I'm not a gambler on this hand unless the state of the match dictates.

[Double !]

Seeing how responses to this post seem to be decreasing, let me fill in the missing pieces.
FWIW, 'twas I who held the South hand. Right or wrong, I decided to bid 3NT hoping that my heart queen would solidify the heart suit and that, even if partner had a lousy holding in clubs, the opps might not lead clubs or I would be able to scramble 9+ tricks before losing the lead. On this occasion, the decision to bid 3NT turned out to be OK. However, the results of mikeh's simulations are very interesting as are the splits in the votes and posting.

Partner/ opening bidder's hand was

♠ A 7 2
♥ K J 8 6 5 4
♦ A 9
♣ A 7

dhl