[mtvesuvius]

V vs NV at MPs you hold:

KT7xx
AKx
xxx
xx

RHO deals:

(1♠) - P - (P) - X
(P) - ?

[bb79]

I bid 1nt.

[helene_t]

Pass.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Pass.

Take the right view, if game is on, I doubt that we will
be able to get 800, but we will get 300-500, so I would
say that going for blood is winning in the long run.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Fluffy]

1NT for me, very close, but our trumps are too weak, and partner is jsut reopening.

[655321]

1NT for me.

I don't feel very strongly about this one, but 1NT should usually be OK unless it is a partscore deal where we could take 1♠X for 300.

[Jlall]

pass

[xcurt]

1nt and i dont think it is close.

passing is betting we can make 2s at these colors

[Jlall]

xcurt, on Jul 19 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

1nt and i dont think it is close.

passing is betting we can make 2s at these colors

I would bet heavily on that, who wouldn't? I thought the point of bidding 1N is because you might have a game and probably won't get 800.

edit: Also as far as I know 100 beats 90!

[xcurt]

Jlall, on Jul 19 2009, 07:22 PM, said:

xcurt, on Jul 19 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

1nt and i dont think it is close.

passing is betting we can make 2s at these colors

I would bet heavily on that, who wouldn't? I thought the point of bidding 1N is because you might have a game and probably won't get 800.

edit: Also as far as I know 100 beats 90!

Well yes, I was on my iphone and didn't want to tap out that there is some vigorish if we can make exactly 1NT and beat 1S exactly 1. I'm not sure how likely that is.

I think there is almost no chance of 800, that's us making 4♠. RHO purports to have an opening hand with at least 4-5 HCP outside of spades, depending on opening style. We're looking at ♥AKx and the one offsuit partner is most likely to hold is hearts. If the minor suit honors are scattered then they will be making some tricks with them. In this scenario, the only way for me to get rid of my minor suit losers (at spades) is to throw them on partner's hearts, but if partner has a good heart suit, then we definitely need +300 because we will have at least 110 in hearts on.

Edit -- as for their prospects of avoiding 300 in 1♠x, again, for the analysis we should be assuming partner doesn't have ♥QTxxx or so. If partner has the stiff spade, then they make 3 or 4 spade tricks (most likely 4 spade tricks) on power so need 2-3 tricks from the offsuits. If partner can cover 4 of my 5 minor suit spot cards then we are pretty close to 3NT (x, QTxx, AKxx, AQJx) with all the defensive strength in one hand, which isn't good for their chances.

So while I can see constructions where the tricks divide up such that passing 1♠x is optimal, I think we are aiming at a 1-total-trick wide window (and possibly specific divisions of the tricks within that window) if we do so. Since I like to think I bid them and play them better than the average field bear, I don't want to risk the entire board on passing right now.

[mtvesuvius]

I think everyone has the Vul. wrong...

We are V and They are NV

[Jlall]

mtvesuvius, on Jul 19 2009, 07:52 PM, said:

I think everyone has the Vul. wrong...

We are V and They are NV

I don't think so

[Jlall]

xcurt, on Jul 19 2009, 07:50 PM, said:

Edit -- as for their prospects of avoiding 300 in 1♠x, again, for the analysis we should be assuming partner doesn't have ♥QTxxx or so.

I dont see why you would assume partner has QTxxx of hearts. Partner having long hearts is far worse for the defense than anything else, giving him 5 hearts as the basis of your analysis for our offensive and defensive potential will bias your results a lot, and I don't see any real reason for that.

[xcurt]

Jlall, on Jul 19 2009, 08:41 PM, said:

xcurt, on Jul 19 2009, 07:50 PM, said:

Edit -- as for their prospects of avoiding 300 in 1♠x, again, for the analysis we should be assuming partner doesn't have ♥QTxxx or so.

I dont see why you would assume partner has QTxxx of hearts. Partner having long hearts is far worse for the defense than anything else, giving him 5 hearts as the basis of your analysis for our offensive and defensive potential will bias your results a lot, and I don't see any real reason for that.

I was assuming he does not have 5 hearts. We need him to not have 5 hearts (for obvious reasons), which means we need cover cards for the ♦xxx, ♣xx (or RHO has 6 tricks in spades), which means 3NT is often making.

[Jlall]

xcurt, on Jul 19 2009, 08:48 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jul 19 2009, 08:41 PM, said:

xcurt, on Jul 19 2009, 07:50 PM, said:

Edit -- as for their prospects of avoiding 300 in 1♠x, again, for the analysis we should be assuming partner doesn't have ♥QTxxx or so.

I dont see why you would assume partner has QTxxx of hearts. Partner having long hearts is far worse for the defense than anything else, giving him 5 hearts as the basis of your analysis for our offensive and defensive potential will bias your results a lot, and I don't see any real reason for that.

I was assuming he does not have 5 hearts. We need him to not have 5 hearts (for obvious reasons), which means we need cover cards for the ♦xxx, ♣xx (or RHO has 6 tricks in spades), which means 3NT is often making.

I misread, my bad. Stupid contractions!

[xcurt]

Well at least you and I read the vulnerability correctly.

[Cascade]

Jlall, on Jul 20 2009, 12:22 PM, said:

xcurt, on Jul 19 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

1nt and i dont think it is close.

passing is betting we can make 2s at these colors

I would bet heavily on that, who wouldn't? I thought the point of bidding 1N is because you might have a game and probably won't get 800.

edit: Also as far as I know 100 beats 90!

according the same metric it loses to 120

[andy_h]

I pass. Maybe LHO could have done something w/r or RHO would have self raised to 2♠ with 6 of them.

[jdonn]

I thought about this a lot and I like pass. The situation I really like is that we could get them for 300 or 500 when we don't have game, or if game was making but we didn't have the values to bid it anyway.

[the hog]

1NT and this is not close.