[Phil]

♠KT73 ♥T92 ♦QT3 ♣KT6

Pard opens 1N; all vul, MPs.

[JLOL]

The great spots would be enough for me to invite though it is quite rare for me to do so with an aceless 4333 8. I think attempting to play spades would be terrible, I never have a quanititative raise to 2N available but if it is part of your methods I would be really happy to use it.

[rogerclee]

Awesome hand for a 2N invite.

[georgeac]

this is in offline bridge so i dunno if i can answer but i did anyways. i chose 2c and then 2nt over 2 red and 3 s over 2 s. anyways i liked how it was 33.33 all the way down at time of posting this.

[mtvesuvius]

JLOL, on Jan 21 2009, 02:56 AM, said:

The great spots would be enough for me to invite though it is quite rare for me to do so with an aceless 4333 8. I think attempting to play spades would be terrible, I never have a quanititative raise to 2N available but if it is part of your methods I would be really happy to use it.

I agree, unless we play a weak NT vul...

[jdonn]

I would bid stayman and invite, including in spades if partner bids spades. I guess I'm terrible! Seriously it's very easy for me to imagine us needing to play in spades, especially when partner responds 2♠ to stayman since he has just two or three in my T9x suit. I would only not bother with the spades here if that king were in another suit and I had like Txxx.

[xcurt]

jdonn, on Jan 21 2009, 11:29 AM, said:

I would bid stayman and invite, including in spades if partner bids spades. I guess I'm terrible! Seriously it's very easy for me to imagine us needing to play in spades, especially when partner responds 2♠ to stayman since he has just two or three in my T9x suit. I would only not bother with the spades here if that king were in another suit and I had like Txxx.

What about Stayman, pass 2♠, and bid 2NT over 2♦/♥?

As Josh points out, if partner has 4 spades we rate to be in trouble in NT with slow tricks and a weak holding wherever partner has his doubleton. Since we have improved the contract relative to 1NT, why jeopardize our positive equity.

And when partner lacks 4 spades, the play in NT frequently will be a war of maneuver instead of a race, and our spots give us the advantage. I don't think 3NT is going to be cold even if partner raises 2NT to 3NT, but as long as sequences ending in 2NT or 3NT have about the same matchpoint expectation as passing 1NT on hands (on hands where partner doesn't have 4 spades) we're ahead by virtue of getting to the 4-4 fit when partner does have 4 spades.

[jdonn]

xcurt, on Jan 21 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

As Josh points out, if partner has 4 spades we rate to be in trouble in NT with slow tricks and a weak holding wherever partner has his doubleton.

I think what I said is being somewhat misinterpreted and used to justify an answer that I don't particularly agree with.

[skjaeran]

Stayman and invite with 3♠ over 2♠, 2NT else.

[mike777]

2c and then 2nt at mp but....3nt at imps.

[mtvesuvius]

mike777, on Jan 21 2009, 08:28 PM, said:

3nt at imps.

LOL

[Phil]

jdonn, on Jan 21 2009, 11:29 AM, said:

I would bid stayman and invite, including in spades if partner bids spades. I guess I'm terrible! Seriously it's very easy for me to imagine us needing to play in spades, especially when partner responds 2♠ to stayman since he has just two or three in my T9x suit. I would only not bother with the spades here if that king were in another suit and I had like Txxx.

LOL I suck too! We got to 4♠ opposite QJxx AKx, Jx, AJxx. Marginal acceptance IMO. LHO led the ♥8 so she's under the gun right away. Misguesses clubs and defense slipped so lucky she's not -2.

I hate invites with 4333 especially aceless but Han says I don't value intermediates enough so I invited.

Quote

Curt Said: What about Stayman, pass 2♠, and bid 2NT over 2♦/♥?

As Josh points out, if partner has 4 spades we rate to be in trouble in NT with slow tricks and a weak holding wherever partner has his doubleton. Since we have improved the contract relative to 1NT, why jeopardize our positive equity

I don't get this. Why would you ever think that finding a 4-4 spade fit is increasing our equity? If we pass 1N it rates to be better than a 4-4 spade partial IMO. When I invite, I'm doing so because I think that we might have a game, not because we have a better partial.

[xcurt]

jdonn, on Jan 21 2009, 12:47 PM, said:

xcurt, on Jan 21 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

As Josh points out, if partner has 4 spades we rate to be in trouble in NT with slow tricks and a weak holding wherever partner has his doubleton.

I think what I said is being somewhat misinterpreted and used to justify an answer that I don't particularly agree with.

How am I supposed to read the PP except as saying that "if partner has 4 spades, I think spades is a long-term winner over NT?" I agree with that statement, and I was trying to give credit to the PP.

I didn't imply that you agree with my estimate of the payoff matrix, and I didn't imply that your statement supports anything about my estimate of the payoff matrix except spade_contract > nt_contract | partner has 4 spades.

As for my overall conclusion, you can try to work it through for yourself. You will need to estimate percentages for partner accepting, partner having spades (you can simulate this), spades taking more tricks than NT when partner has 4 spades, and partner making 4♠ when he accepts or 3♠ when he declines. You can estimate the field from the poll results. Right now the field is roughly 1/4 in 1NT, 1/4 inviting in NT, 1/2 inviting in spades or NT.

I will illustrate with some simplistic assumptions about the likely outcomes. Your auction differs from my auction in the following cases:

Partner has 4 spades and a maximum -> I am in 2♠ and you are in 4♠. Here the field is 1/4 in 1NT, 1/4 in 3NT, and 1/2 in 4♠. You get roughly (3/4 + 3/8)/2 so about 56% expectation. I get (1/4 + 3/8) or 5/8 so about 62%. I'm assuming spades always beats NT by 1 trick and the games are 50-50 propositions.

Partner has 4 spades and a minimum -> I am in 2♠ and you are in 3♠. Here the field is 1/4 in 1NT, 1/4 in 2NT, and 1/2 in 3♠. I certainly can't do any worse than you in this situation. In fact, I'm going to do a lot better whenever 8 tricks is the limit in spades and 7 in NT, since you are losing to the 1NT players and I beat them (1/4 of a board) and you tie the 2NT players and I beat them (1/8 of a board) and I beat the 3♠ players and you tie them (1/4 of a board), which means I do a full 62.5% of a board better whenever this is the case.

With more realistic assumptions (which are too involved to reproduce here) I expect to do 10-12% of a board better with my auction than yours. Yes this is counterintuitive, but matchpoints is a sick game sometimes.