[gwnn]

Partner bid 1♥ and then passed 1♠. I asked him "would you have done the same in the Bermuda Bowl final?" and he said "yes obviously".

My hand was Qxx Qxx xxxx QTx and we "missed" the field contract of 4♠-1 and the 3NT which is definitely a contract one wants to be in (I can't tell you if it makes or not-I claimed at trick 4). We wrote a very very undeserved top.

I think 1♠ is the call, for what it's worth - 1♥ only gains if we find a better game via shape relays, which is an unlikely case I guess.

[Gerben42]

Quote

"would you have done the same in the Bermuda Bowl final?

I would respond: "I don't expect ever to come close to the BB final"
But if I choose a bid I would think I would also make the bid in the German teams final.

[lexlogan]

gwnn, on Nov 19 2007, 09:02 PM, said:

You pick up 1st seat nobody vulnerable, Pairs,

AKxxx
AKx
Axx
xx

...

If you run a simulation on this hand, I think you'll find that it's worth little more than 18 points at notrump. Double-dummy results consistently show 5332 to be little better than 4333, presumably because the doubleton increases the chance the opps will run five tricks. Three Aces are nice but no tens or nines cancel them out. It's probably worth 19 or more at spades. After 1C*-1D*, I'd rebid 1S.

[the hog]

Having played a similar structure for quite a long time, I would bid the following way:
1C 1D
1H 1S
1NT
Passing 1S is totally absurd - you could be gin for game in S or H. I have learned this the hard way. Also this hand simply has too many controls to simply rebid 1S.

Btw I don't like your 1S bid showing 0 controls here, with 0-5hcp you will be bidding 1S too often. You can always find out about controls later if necessary.

[jtfanclub]

gwnn, on Nov 19 2007, 04:02 PM, said:

AKxxx
AKx
Axx
xx

I'd bid 1♠ directly.

This hand just 'feels' suit oriented to me. The Ace and King heaviness, the small doubleton, and the AKxxx....if partner has crap I'd rather play this in spades than no-trump.

I don't have any objection to calling this 19 points, but I don't like 1♥ followed by 1NT, and I certainly don't like 1♥ followed by 2♠. I'm not even sure why 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠ is nonforcing, and I'm certainly not going to pass it.

If this were an IMP game I'd feel this was closer. Here, I'm more worried about ending up in the wrong part score. If partner can't find a call over 1♠, any game we miss is going to be iffy.

[lorserker]

I think that 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - PASS is better than 1NT.

This because the most likely bid of partner over 1NT is pass, and in this case 1♠ is a better contract than 1NT. In case partner wouldn't have passed 1NT we shall get a stupid result, but making fewer tricks in 1NT when we could have made more in 1♠ is worse as this is what will probably occur over 1NT.

[lorserker]

I agree that 1♥ was not a good idea.

[downagain]

Well once you upgrade your hand, then you'll continue to bid upon this. Otherwise you should have just given partner the chance to bid after 1♣-1♦-1♠. He can even have some 5-card fit and 4♠ might make.

I agree that you should upgrade this hand, so I'll just rebid 1NT now.. waiting for partner to bid that miraculous 2♥ transfer .

The K&R Hand Evaluator also shows this hand qualifies as a 19-21NT.