[Cascade]

Scoring: IMP

1NT (2♦) Pass (Pass)
2♠ (Pass) Pass (3♦)
Pass (Pass) ?

1NT = 12-14

---

[whereagles]

Is this a lead problem?

♣A or ♦5, depending on the day

[Codo]

I would bid 3 Spade. We can make it, we can fail for lesser then 3 Diamond.

[OleBerg]

3♠.

Highly likely one of the contracts will make.

[Apollo81]

Pass.

Bidding only really helps when both 3♦ and 3♠ make. If you believe the Law, this shouldn't happen on this hand.

[ASkolnick]

I bid 3♠ actually because of the law.

1) There certainly is a possiblity you have 17 trumps. It's possible and even likely that partner has 5 trumps, therefore one 3 level bid will make.
2) Even if you are down white, unless 3D is down, you are certainly not getting doubled.
3) Maybe you push them to 4♦.

Too many ways of winning by bidding, and when we are -4 IMPS on this part score, we say my bad and move on.

[keylime]

Passing, so clearcut it's scary. The Law bidders obviously don't believe in the fact that with a 4333 hand there's a downward adjustment to be made, and the losers are completely obscene for us to consider a bid. We have 10 losers opposite a weak NT - a strong NT I might consider bidding, but pard likely has for us 7-8 losers for their opening, and with the fact they will cash two diamonds off the hop and see how the dummy flops, a club shift is nearly automatic.

I strongly suspect pard to be 4-4-2-3. Let's give them the best hand we can: AKxx KQxx xx Qxx. That's a decent 14 count, but you're off one likely right on the hop: two diamonds, a trump, and the heart suit is potentially disaster if AJ sits over the KQ, which is probably the case because, they did bid over a weak NT that is constructive in tone.

Now, let's give pard their normal junk of AQxx KQJx xx xxx. Not fun at all if the cards are wrong.

[mikestar]

3♠ bidders are misapplying the Law -- the hand requires huge negative adjustments. And are you sure 2♠ promises 5? I think it should, but how will you do in 3♠ on a 4-4 fit?

[OleBerg]

keylime, on Mar 19 2009, 06:47 PM, said:

Passing, so clearcut it's scary. The Law bidders obviously don't believe in the fact that with a 4333 hand there's a downward adjustment to be made, and the losers are completely obscene for us to consider a bid. We have 10 losers opposite a weak NT - a strong NT I might consider bidding, but pard likely has for us 7-8 losers for their opening, and with the fact they will cash two diamonds off the hop and see how the dummy flops, a club shift is nearly automatic.

I strongly suspect pard to be 4-4-2-3. Let's give them the best hand we can: AKxx KQxx xx Qxx. That's a decent 14 count, but you're off one likely right on the hop: two diamonds, a trump, and the heart suit is potentially disaster if AJ sits over the KQ, which is probably the case because, they did bid over a weak NT that is constructive in tone.

Now, let's give pard their normal junk of AQxx KQJx xx xxx. Not fun at all if the cards are wrong.

Your example hands looks so much like a a take-out-double, it's scary.

[keylime]

Yes, and that's being friendly. Imagine a 4-3-2-4 hand. Now that's potentially worse since clubs will likely be 4-2, diamonds 5-3/6-2, and the heart situation downgrades a bit due to the missing length card.

[keylime]

And if 2♠ is on a five card suit, I'm more cautious than on a 4 carder suit - I'll be having to play a bit from out of my hand.

Edit: Helps to read the auction right; thought 3rd seat doubled 2♦ hence the 4-4 major thought. Doesn't change my view that pass is likely right.

[Phil]

I pass.

Dwayne's examples aren't relevant (those are doubles), but we our hand is defensive not offensive.

[Apollo81]

There is almost 0 chance that they will compete 4 over 3 on this hand. The most likely results if you bid 3♠ are:

- no one can make anything at the 3-level
- one side can make 8 tricks and the other side can make 9 tricks

[Trumpace]

Assuming we have 9 card fit and opps have 8 card fit we have 17 total tricks.

Assume the law holds.

1) If 3D goes down, 3S makes, it is 100 vs 140.

2) if 3D makes, 3S is off, -110 vs -50.

Bidding 3S seems the right action (assuming no contract is more than 1 off and no doubles appear). Even if 3S is doubled, we might be ok.

What am I missing?

[keylime]

4333 shape - downgrade. If the weak NT'er does not have the Q♣, After the first diamond is cashed in theory, switching to clubs is almost mandatory to kill the entries.

[Lobowolf]

Trumpace, on Mar 19 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

Assuming we have 9 card fit and opps have 8 card fit we have 17 total tricks.

Assume the law holds.

1) If 3D goes down, 3S makes, it is 100 vs 140.

2) if 3D makes, 3S is off, -110 vs -50.

Bidding 3S seems the right action (assuming no contract is more than 1 off and no doubles appear). Even if 3S is doubled, we might be ok.

What am I missing?

I think there are two important factors that your post doesn't address:

1) The scoring is IMPs. At pairs, there might be a fair amount of difference between the +/+ scores, or it might be important to protect the 110 you might have gotten at spades against only 100, or some such consideration, but it's markedly less important here. I'm not saying the 1 & 2 IMP pickups are irrelevant; I'm saying they're less important than they would be at pairs.

2) If there are 17 total tricks, and one of the contracts makes, then the numbers are, clearly correct; however, there's also a decent chance that there AREN'T exactly 17 tricks. The next closest numbers are 16 and 18, and with balanced distribution of points, the most likely scenarios for those two totals would be: Both 3-level contracts are down 1, and both 3-level contracts are making, on the nose. As has been pointed out, there's a strong case to be made for downgrading the LTT analysis. 16 is a lot more likely than 18. Both contracts down 1 turns +100 into -50; you're risking 4 IMPs in that case for the 1 or 2 IMP pickups at issue if there are exactly 17 tricks.

Of course, if there are 18 total tricks, the case for bidding is, inversely, even stronger than you present. I find that possibility very remote, however.

[bid_em_up]

Trumpace, on Mar 19 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

What am I missing?

Nothing.

[rogerclee]

I think it is strange that there are so many people in this thread referring to the Law and so few people just saying that partner is 5323 most likely (basically always?), which is terrible with our shape, so we have an obvious pass. I think it's worrisome that there are two pages in the advanced/expert forum about the merits of the law of total tricks on a hand like this.

[Apollo81]

rogerclee, on Mar 19 2009, 02:10 PM, said:

I think it is strange that there are so many people in this thread referring to the Law and so few people just saying that partner is 5323 most likely (basically always?), which is terrible with our shape, so we have an obvious pass.

The Law supports a pass. There are 16-17 total tricks.

[rogerclee]

Apollo81, on Mar 19 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Mar 19 2009, 02:10 PM, said:

I think it is strange that there are so many people in this thread referring to the Law and so few people just saying that partner is 5323 most likely (basically always?), which is terrible with our shape, so we have an obvious pass.

The Law supports a pass.

Yes, but so does bridge logic, and I didn't even need to make any adjustments.

I want to add that it's basically impossible to come up with a hand for partner where we want to be in 3♠ (that is, just from looking at partner's hand, we are probably making 3♠ and they are probably making 3♦). I am also willing to bet that the double dummy total number of tricks is less than 16, but this depends a little on what you think a 2♦ or 3♦ bid is.

On top of this, it is practically a puzzle to even construct layouts where both 3♠ and 3♦ are making.