[kgr]

Scoring: MP

---

2♦!-3NT
 
2♦=Multi (Weak 6cMajor, ...or something strong)
3NT=not agreed (partner could ask your hand with 2NT).
At the table the opps didn't make it feel like a psych. 3NT was probably bid to make, thinking that it will be a better contract then 4M at MP's.
...You are minimal for your opening. Too weak to pass?

[Jlall]

Just pass, partner didn't involve you and you have nothing special at all.

[jdonn]

Too weak to pass? I've certainly made weaker 2 bids than this. Since when does 3NT say "pull with a minimum"?

[jjbrr]

If partner cared that you have a min with ♥, he might have asked.

[pooltuna]

kgr, on Mar 29 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

---

2♦!-3NT
 
2♦=Multi (Weak 6cMajor, ...or something strong)
3NT=not agreed (partner could ask your hand with 2NT).
At the table the opps didn't make it feel like a psych. 3NT was probably bid to make, thinking that it will be a better contract then 4M at MP's.
...You are minimal for your opening. Too weak to pass?

when partner takes a unilateral position, he is not asking your opinion be a good partner and don't give one.

[mikeh]

As soon as you wrote that partner could have asked, you answered your own question. He didn't ask so you have no rights in this auction. Pass and be happy you hold an Ace....heck, when I play multi, this looks like an average to average plus opening (we use strong weak twos and weak weak multi)

[the hog]

kgr, on Mar 30 2010, 04:45 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

---

2♦!-3NT
 
2♦=Multi (Weak 6cMajor, ...or something strong)
3NT=not agreed (partner could ask your hand with 2NT).
At the table the opps didn't make it feel like a psych. 3NT was probably bid to make, thinking that it will be a better contract then 4M at MP's.
...You are minimal for your opening. Too weak to pass?

I don't know why you are asking this question and I certainly don't know why it is in this forum.
Your partner could have


AKQJxxx
void
Axx
Axx

Do you still want to take out to 4H?

[OleBerg]

Even hesitating before passing is an insult to partner.

3NT demands a pass, and you even have better values, than pertner should expect.

You have an Ace, a sure trick all the times partner has a singleton hearts, which he has quite often. Even facing a doubleton, the ace is often a prime value.

The ace is also a sure stopper, in case partner has nine tricks but an open suit. (It is less likely that the opponents can run with five tricks, than it would be if you had KQ instead.)

[kgr]

Scoring: MP

---

My partner did bid a fast 3NT because it was MPs. (I'm not 100% sure about his hand) That was probably too much of a gamble. Almost everybody made 4H and we were down in 3NT.
He says that I should correct to 4H with a weak hand because he would never bid it without a stop in one of majors, and therefor he has at least ♥Hx.

[Free]

kgr, on Mar 30 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

My partner did bid a fast 3NT because it was MPs. (I'm not 100% sure about his hand) That was probably too much of a gamble. Almost everybody made 4H and we were down in 3NT.
He says that I should correct to 4H with a weak hand because he would never bid it without a stop in one of majors, and therefor he has at least ♥Hx.

If your partner bids 3NT because it's MP, and he has ♥Hx, why should you pull? You expect 6 ♥ tricks ~50% of the time...

If partner bids 3NT, it's to play, whatever you have. No discussion necessary, he could've asked what you have, he didn't, he made the decision and he doesn't care what you hold.

[P_Marlowe]

kgr, on Mar 30 2010, 02:54 AM, said:

Dealer: South Vul: None Scoring: MP

♠ Axx ♥ Kx ♦ KQx ♣ KQTxx ♠ x ♥ AJTxxx ♦ xxxx ♣ Jx

My partner did bid a fast 3NT because it was MPs. (I'm not 100% sure about his hand) That was probably too much of a gamble. Almost everybody made 4H and we were down in 3NT.
He says that I should correct to 4H with a weak hand because he would never bid it without a stop in one of majors, and therefor he has at least ♥Hx.

The problem is the 3NT bid, not the pass over 3NT.

Lets assume, you have a weak two in spades, give you
KQ to 6th and and add. minor Ace, you are still down,
if they play to the other minor Ace, and kill the king of
hearts.

As it is, the hand is too weak to make the 3NT bid, it lacks
lots of controls.

I dont mind p going creative, but p should shut up, if it backfired.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

In your partner's logical chain, his premise is not necessarily correct, nor does his conclusion follow from it in any case.

[cherdanno]

The 3NT bid was just wrong.

[pooltuna]

kgr, on Mar 30 2010, 02:54 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

---

My partner did bid a fast 3NT because it was MPs. (I'm not 100% sure about his hand) That was probably too much of a gamble. Almost everybody made 4H and we were down in 3NT.
He says that I should correct to 4H with a weak hand because he would never bid it without a stop in one of majors, and therefor he has at least ♥Hx.

your partner is meta-agreement challenged!

[kgr]

pooltuna, on Mar 30 2010, 03:25 PM, said:

kgr, on Mar 30 2010, 02:54 AM, said:

Dealer: South Vul: None Scoring: MP

♠ Axx ♥ Kx ♦ KQx ♣ KQTxx ♠ x ♥ AJTxxx ♦ xxxx ♣ Jx

My partner did bid a fast 3NT because it was MPs. (I'm not 100% sure about his hand) That was probably too much of a gamble. Almost everybody made 4H and we were down in 3NT.
He says that I should correct to 4H with a weak hand because he would never bid it without a stop in one of majors, and therefor he has at least ♥Hx.

your partner is meta-agreement challenged!

For my partners defense:
This was at the last table of a pairs event. He felt (and appeared to be correct in that) that we needed one more top to win the event. That is why he preferred to bid 3NT without giving too much info to opps.
...we ended 2nd.

[pooltuna]

kgr, on Mar 30 2010, 09:43 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Mar 30 2010, 03:25 PM, said:

kgr, on Mar 30 2010, 02:54 AM, said:

<!-- NORTHSOUTH begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> South </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> None </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> MP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table border='1'> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> Axx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> Kx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> KQx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> KQTxx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> x </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> AJTxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> xxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> Jx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- NORTHSOUTH end -->
My partner did bid a fast 3NT because it was MPs. (I'm not 100% sure about his hand) That was probably too much of a gamble. Almost everybody made 4H and we were down in 3NT.
He says that I should correct to 4H with a weak hand because he would never bid it without a stop in one of majors, and therefor he has at least ♥Hx.

your partner is meta-agreement challenged!

For my partners defense:
This was at the last table of a pairs event. He felt (and appeared to be correct in that) that we needed one more top to win the event. That is why he preferred to bid 3NT without giving too much info to opps.
...we ended 2nd.

and where would you have ended if you had not gotten a 0 on this one(deserved if not in fact)?

[kgr]

pooltuna, on Mar 30 2010, 04:48 PM, said:

kgr, on Mar 30 2010, 09:43 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Mar 30 2010, 03:25 PM, said:

your partner is meta-agreement challenged!

For my partners defense:
This was at the last table of a pairs event. He felt (and appeared to be correct in that) that we needed one more top to win the event. That is why he preferred to bid 3NT without giving too much info to opps.
...we ended 2nd.

and where would you have ended if you had not gotten a 0 on this one(deserved if not in fact)?

Still 2nd. (4H would have been around 60% iso 0% and the difference with 1st pair was 2.19%; 28 deals; small tournament)

[jjbrr]

Your partner knew he was gambling and this time he lost. That happens sometimes in bridge; better luck next time

[ArtK78]

If you finished 2nd, and you would have finished 2nd with a normal result in 4♥, then your partner did the right thing, no matter how warped his logic may have been at the time.

3NT is a terrible call, as many have pointed out. However, your partner apparently is very good at determining your standing in the event.

He took a chance - it failed. You finished 2nd and would have done so if he had taken the normal action. There is something to be said for that.

[OleBerg]

kgr, on Mar 30 2010, 04:43 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Mar 30 2010, 03:25 PM, said:

kgr, on Mar 30 2010, 02:54 AM, said:

<!-- NORTHSOUTH begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> South </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> None </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> MP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table border='1'> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> Axx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> Kx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> KQx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> KQTxx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> x </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> AJTxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> xxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> Jx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- NORTHSOUTH end -->
My partner did bid a fast 3NT because it was MPs. (I'm not 100% sure about his hand) That was probably too much of a gamble. Almost everybody made 4H and we were down in 3NT.
He says that I should correct to 4H with a weak hand because he would never bid it without a stop in one of majors, and therefor he has at least ♥Hx.

your partner is meta-agreement challenged!

For my partners defense:
This was at the last table of a pairs event. He felt (and appeared to be correct in that) that we needed one more top to win the event. That is why he preferred to bid 3NT without giving too much info to opps.
...we ended 2nd.

Your partner took a unilateral, gambling action, which circumstances might have merited*. It didn't work. End of story.

Unless you want to add: Even if you knew this (which would obviously be illegal), your hand is still a pass.

Of course, if you could see through the back of the cards, you should have pulled.

*It is quite hard to judge when such circumstances is met, but running scores is mandatory.