[sceptic]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     Pass  1♠    Pass
 2♠    Pass  3♦    Pass
 3♠    Pass  Pass  Pass
 

[FrancesHinden]

Game is worse than 50%. Why do you want to be in it?

[TimG]

I think I'd skip the invite and just bid game.

Edit: I think this would have been better posed if we only got opener's hand and didn't know the other results.

[kgr]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 28 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

Game is worse than 50%. Why do you want to be in it?

I would think it is around 50% and that it is enough for wanting to be in it.
...NV game needs around 40%? (I have actually no idea, but that is my guess.)
BTW:
- I would not have invited, but bid game.
- Seems like 3♦ is not a useful invite with AKQx. How do you expect partner to look at his ♦'s to decide if he should go to 4 or not? I would rather invite with 2NT.

[ASkolnick]

LTC says you should bid game. You have a 4-5 (Depends on your view of the Q) loser hand opposite a 9 loser hand (Simple Raise). 24-(9+5)=10 tricks. Or visually is there any hand which makes game a really bad proposition. Possibly if all points are outside trumps and he only has three, but I will take my chances.

Also, many people will find out about a 4th trump, which also makes it very easy to go to game.

[TylerE]

Look at it this way...give partner about the worst possible hand he can have (and the given hand is VERY close), and game is still almost an even chance. Give partner anything extra (Q!C for instance) and it's practically cold. In other words, put me with the 4♠ bidders.

[ArtK78]

I would have just bid game on the East hand.

It is quite unlucky that there is so much duplication on the hand, and game is still about 50%.

[mikeh]

This hand is a good advertisement for Bergen raises, assuming that you think that game is appropriate... Frances' point is well taken, but we are unlucky to find that our AKQ in hearts are worth only 2 tricks... make the diamond J into the club Queen, and game is pretty good notwithstanding the heart duplication.

Playing 'standard', where partner's raise may be and often will be on Kxx or worse, and I can't see blasting game as east.

In-Out valuation is a legitimate and valuable tool... look not only at what high cards you hold but where they are, in terms of your side's suit length. We have great diamonds, but half our high cards are in our doubletons, while our longest suit is headed by the 10. This hand is no longer worth 18 hcp (even adjusting for shape.. tough to argue that we get hcp for AQ tight AND an upward adjustment for shortage

A game try is in order, but 3♦ is wrongly directed... in fact, one can argue that the only suit in which we would NEVER choose to make a game try in diamonds.. he can have NO bad holding there.

Ideally, we'd have a trump ask... using 3♠ makes a lot of sense, altho many play it as preemptive, especially nv. I frankly doubt its utility in an auction in which the opps have already passed 3 times... if they balance, they will almost never bid game, and we can always bid 3♠ later.

I am not happy about a natural 2N try... too many hands get us to a hopeless 3N... imagine partner with a good 3433... AQx Kxxx xxx xxx on a club lead.

We don't seem to play bergen, and if we have no trump ask, I would vote for 3♣, partly because club help might be useful and partly because partner is allowed to bid 3 red suit on the way to 3♠ to show no club help but a good hand in context.. while it is tough to see a 3♦ call, 3♥ might persuade me to bid game (mistakenly thinking that I might well have a chance to dump a club loser opposite, say, Axx Kxxx xx Jxxx, making most of the time that trump are 3-2).

[TimG]

mikeh, on Oct 28 2008, 03:18 PM, said:

Ideally, we'd have a trump ask... using 3♠ makes a lot of sense, altho many play it as preemptive, especially nv. I frankly doubt its utility in an auction in which the opps have already passed 3 times... if they balance, they will almost never bid game, and we can always bid 3♠ later.

I believe you can have it both ways: use 3M as either a trump ask or a blocking bid. When you simply want to block, responder will not have the trumps to cooperate, so he will pass 3M. I suspect you can construct a pair of hands where opener will want to block and responder will have enough in trumps to accept, but then responder's 4M is unlikely to be unwelcome.

[fromageGB]

sceptic, on Oct 28 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

  I disagreed with my hand

I often disagree with mine, too, but you just have to make do with what you are given

[Codo]

If you had agreed to play Long suit game tries, 3 Diamond is the only sytemical game try. But as Mike pointed out, any game try is better then this one.
If I had judged this hand just worth an invite and lacking further agreements, I had tried 2 NT.

But I had bid game with your hand, allthough it is close.
And I had accept with your partners hand, because the doubleton and the fourth trump are huge. (Well the doubleton is not so huge in this hand, but it could have been.)

[Wackojack]

I have to say that looking at your hand Wayne I wouldnt think twice about bidding 4♠. Then looking at partner's hand confirms this evaluation as it is just about "worst case" to fit with your hand and game is still very close to 50%.

[mcphee]

3!D was a wasted bid and really zero chance for success, what help do you need there?
I vote for 2 NT if you are too shy to blast 4!S.

As for the comment that game is less than 50%, who cares? Imps, you have a chance to grab a game bonus, this is a hand you grab it on. Are you going to wait for something better? Lets bid the game and hope it makes.

[TimG]

sceptic, on Oct 29 2008, 06:10 AM, said:

but playing 5 card majors, I thought 1 spade 2 spade, 4 spade shows 19

I think it just shows that you think you might make 4S opposite a fair share of minimum raises.

[Wackojack]

Hand evaluation. If evaluating the outcome of various hand scenarios with partner is either too difficult or inconclusive. You can look at the losing trick count. That points to bidding 4♠. The 18 count with not only 2 aces but also a KQ to go with one of the aces makes it clear to me that 4♠ would normally be the clear winner.

The other day in a tourney I had:
♠ AJ1086
♥ K4
♦ 9
♣ AQJ83

The bidding playing 4 card majors was p p 1♠ (2♣) 2♠ p ?. Pros and cons for bidding 4♠. Bad news only 15HCP. Good news 5-5 with decent cards in long suits and 5 losers (perhaps saying the same thing) Bad news opp intervened over my hand. I decided on caution because of the overcall and bid 3♠. Partner passed and came up with a dead min hand
♠ 9752
♥ Q1095
♦ 8754
♣ 5

When spades split 2-2 making 10 tricks was straight forward and we lost a few imps on the hand. True partner had no wasted values but nevertheless a combined 17 points and game is 50% or just better. I dont think I am just resulting.

Oh in case anybody asks its love all and 5♦ looks like 2 off.

[hotShot]

You want to be in game opposite 8-9 HCP and even some 6-7 HCP from partner will allow to make game.

♠ T9863
♥ AQ
♦ AKQ5
♣ K7

What is the worst hand, your partner can have?

♠: Even if partner holds 245 or 2457, you still have a chance that no opponent has more than (2)3 ♠'s.

♥: If partner holds Jxx, Your side can probably collect 2♥ tricks, if your partner holds Kxx you might make 3♥ tricks.

♦: Partners values are wasted, but he can't have more than 1.

♣: If partner holds the A, great! If he has the Q at least one ♣ trick is save. If partner does not have the A or Q, there is still the chance that the K is behind the A.

So if your partner does not have ♣AQ or the ♥K, he will have 4+HCP in ♠.

[mikeh]

sceptic, on Oct 29 2008, 06:10 AM, said:

Quote

but playing 5 card majors, I thought 1 spade 2 spade, 4 spade shows 19, I could not upgrade my hand (could I?)

You have to learn to move away from this type of analysis.. which is difficult because, as I know, this is the way that almost all of us are taught the game. We learn the 4321 count, then later we learn adjustments for shortness or for length, and we learn formulae... when I learned it was 26 points for 3N or a major suit game, 28 for a minor game and so on.

As we advance in our understanding of the game, we can and should begin to use more subtle means of valuation. There are a number of metrics that can be used, and we have seen a number of threads on them, ranging from Zar points to LTC to in-out valuation and so on.

We also have to learn to balance the desire for pin-point accuracy in bidding with the desire to make life difficult for the defenders... sometimes our game or slam tries have the effect of warning the opps away from a disastrous lead, or clarifying our shape so that they avoid making a poor discard, and so on.. so that we will sometimes do better to blast game on slightly weaker hands that we are originally taught, because defence is tougher than offence.

The fact that you are a frequent contributor to these threads suggests that you have the level of dedication needed to move into these more challenging areas.. and you will find that the game becomes even more enjoyable as you do.

[kenrexford]

I'm curious as to how much 2♠ has shown. At IMP scoring, Opener seems to have a sound 4♠ call. But, I also think that Responder would be worth at least a 3♥ "game last train" try again, with that fourth spade, unless he has already advertised at least semi-constructive values. If he has announced semi-constructive values, then 3♦ was either an egregious underbid or an egregious overbid (3♦, and then insist anyway = slam try).

[lexlogan]

2NT would be a better game try than 3♦, but with five losers, 4♠ looks right. You caught a horrible dummy, game was still close to 50%, and on the actual layout it makes.

[kenrexford]

I would add something. I think the criticism of the 3♦ game try is a bit misplaced.

When your partner bids 3♦ in this sequence, you are supposed to look at your values in light of this call. Side Aces always carry weight. Side Kings may carry weight. Side Queens are really questionable.

From Opener's perspective, although he knows that a 3♦ call will not cause Responder to get excited about his diamond holdings, as he will not have any primary honors per force, it does focus partner on the right side cards, sort of. Responder will not get excited about the heart Queen, because he cannot have it. He will get excited if he has the club Ace, regardless. He will have ability to show mild interest with the heart King, by bidding 3♥. Internal trump honors will always excite partner.

The sole question, then, is whether Opener does or does not want Responder to be excited by the club Queen. I think Opener should want to encourage that interest, considering that just the Queen enhances the King and that the A-Q may remove the need for a heart finesse.

But, I don't think that the 3♦ call is quite as hopeless as suggested.