[manudude03]

Weak field at MPs. You deal and pick up this beauty.

Scoring: MP

---

Playing benji acol

2♦*-2♥**
3NT***

* game-force or 23-24 balanced
** relay
*** 27-28 balanced (hopefully! real life pickup)

[Fluffy]

I wonder who you distinguish between 23-24 and 25-26 but anyway. It is hard to argue withot knowing the rest of the options but I think decision is ok, the methods don't help you much, and you better take a right decision now before you are too high.

your hand has a lot of slam potentioal with a fit, but if you don't have a fit you might regret not bidding 3NT now.

[helene_t]

Fluffy, on Apr 13 2010, 02:44 PM, said:

I wonder who you distinguish between 23-24 and 25-26

25-26 would be 2♣ followed by 3NT.

[mikeh]

I don't play this method, and seeing this hand doesn't make me want to start anytime soon. Of course, 4Major/5+ diamonds strong hands are a problem in most standard methods.

With some partners I play (in analogous sequences) a jump to 3♠ would show this shape (4=5) and be forcing. If that were available (and I assume 2♠ here would be natural and gf) then it seems better than 3N.

I hate to rule out a slam when I have a 2-loser hand: I know that partner is still there, but what's he to do with Jxxxx xxx xx xxx?

I'm not saying we'd reach slam opposite that, but at least we'd make whatever contract we played.

Having said that, given the constraints, 3N is not insane. It's merely the second best bid: why not 3♦? If partner has a 5 card major, he can bid it and I can raise (via keycard if he bids 3♠).

[jdonn]

I don't think it's particularly dangerous as far as 3NT is concerned, I just think the chances of slam are way way too good.

[jjbrr]

I don't understand why you called this 27-28... perhaps you could share?

[jdonn]

jjbrr, on Apr 13 2010, 11:28 AM, said:

I don't understand why you called this 27-28... perhaps you could share?

Solid 5 card suit and cards all working together? I think if you call it balanced then upgrading is quite clear. Many yarbs opposite make slam.

[Bbradley62]

Is the 2♥ bid actually a relay (meaning that it gives no, or very little, information about responder's hand) or is it negative?

[jjbrr]

jdonn, on Apr 13 2010, 10:35 AM, said:

jjbrr, on Apr 13 2010, 11:28 AM, said:

I don't understand why you called this 27-28... perhaps you could share?

Solid 5 card suit and cards all working together? I think if you call it balanced then upgrading is quite clear. Many yarbs opposite make slam.

Those yarbs won't bid over 3NT, and of the ones that will many (most?) of them will contain long ♣, right?

Also, how many 3-suited 25 counts with a small x somewhere don't have many yarbs opposite that make slam? I don't see how that's an argument for upgrading NT by 2 points.

[cherdanno]

I really don't understand not bidding 3D. If partner has support, you may have to play 5D instead of 3N, which may or may not be good, and you may get to 6D, which will be good. If partner has a 5-card major, you will be excited (I would basically force to slam over 3S). If partner has neither, he will probably bid 3N which will be right-sided. (Yes we have a tenace in hearts but I believe on a heart lead we have good chances to make, anyway.)

[jdonn]

jjbrr, on Apr 13 2010, 11:50 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 13 2010, 10:35 AM, said:

jjbrr, on Apr 13 2010, 11:28 AM, said:

I don't understand why you called this 27-28... perhaps you could share?

Solid 5 card suit and cards all working together? I think if you call it balanced then upgrading is quite clear. Many yarbs opposite make slam.

Those yarbs won't bid over 3NT, and of the ones that will many (most?) of them will contain long ♣, right?

Also, how many 3-suited 25 counts with a small x somewhere don't have many yarbs opposite that make slam? I don't see how that's an argument for upgrading NT by 2 points.

Obviously the reason to point out that hands with nothing can make slam is to suggest that there are even many more hands with a little that make slam but will pass 3NT showing 25-26 but act over 3NT showing 27-28. I don't see why you wouldn't consider that an argument in favor of upgrading. But whatever I'm still not in favor of calling the hand balanced, I just believe (really very strongly) that about 27-28 is the right evaluation.

[manudude03]

jjbrr, on Apr 13 2010, 05:28 PM, said:

I don't understand why you called this 27-28... perhaps you could share?

As josh pointed out, solid 5 card suit and top tricks galore. It seems clear to upgrade it by at least 1 point, so compare to "typical" 26 counts. Would you rather have this hand or AKx AQJx AKJ Axx, or KQJx AKQ AQ KQxx. The actual hand has 9 top tricks pretty much (and 10 on a heart lead), not something you can say about the vast majority of 25-26 balanced-ish hand. The only flaw with this hand compared to the other 2 posted is the lack of clubs.

I wouldn't have rebid 3NT at IMPs or a strong field, but when you can be fairly sure the field aren't bidding slams, seemed better at the time just to outscore them (and who says they will even lead a club?). If we are to give partner a yarb, then it seems he needs at least 4 diamonds or 5 spades for a slam to be good. Otherwise, we can't ruff enough times. (even xx xx xxxx xxxxx is pretty much on a finesse.

The other main reason for treating this as balanced is that I hate auctions which start (GF opener)-(relay)-3♦, if partner bids 3♥ I can't even be sure it's a 5 card suit (xxx Jxxx xx xxxxx?). Because of this, if treating it as a balanced hand is a logical alternative, I will treat is as such.

Partner's hand was x Txx 9xxxx AJxx, heart finesse was working so emerged with 11 tricks beating everyone who stayed in 5♦. It was a top at the time of scoring, but I suspect 1 or 2 pairs might have bid it. I will check next time I'm at the club.

[jdonn]

manudude03, on Apr 13 2010, 01:34 PM, said:

Partner's hand was x Txx 9xxxx AJxx, heart finesse was working so emerged with 11 tricks beating everyone who stayed in 5♦. It was a top at the time of scoring, but I suspect 1 or 2 pairs might have bid it. I will check next time I'm at the club.

Why did partner pass if you showed 27-28?

[manudude03]

jdonn, on Apr 13 2010, 07:49 PM, said:

manudude03, on Apr 13 2010, 01:34 PM, said:

Partner's hand was x Txx 9xxxx AJxx, heart finesse was working so emerged with 11 tricks beating everyone who stayed in 5♦. It was a top at the time of scoring, but I suspect 1 or 2 pairs might have bid it. I will check next time I'm at the club.

Why did partner pass if you showed 27-28?

Very conservative partner. First board of the night, he had something like Tx AQx KTxx A9xx, (1C)-1S-(P) and he simply bid 1N. Generally speaking, people here are very reluctant to do bid anything which may not make. I've lost count of how many times I've had a bottom for bidding game requiring 1 of 2 finesses both failing, only to find everyone else is in 2♥+1.

[jjbrr]

nit

It tilts me that you guys keep saying "solid 5-card suit"

Neither of you have ever seen anyone with Txxxx before?

/nit

[jjbrr]

manudude03, on Apr 13 2010, 12:34 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Apr 13 2010, 05:28 PM, said:

I don't understand why you called this 27-28... perhaps you could share?

As josh pointed out, solid 5 card suit and top tricks galore. It seems clear to upgrade it by at least 1 point, so compare to "typical" 26 counts. Would you rather have this hand or AKx AQJx AKJ Axx, or KQJx AKQ AQ KQxx. The actual hand has 9 top tricks pretty much (and 10 on a heart lead), not something you can say about the vast majority of 25-26 balanced-ish hand. The only flaw with this hand compared to the other 2 posted is the lack of clubs.

I wouldn't have rebid 3NT at IMPs or a strong field, but when you can be fairly sure the field aren't bidding slams, seemed better at the time just to outscore them (and who says they will even lead a club?). If we are to give partner a yarb, then it seems he needs at least 4 diamonds or 5 spades for a slam to be good. Otherwise, we can't ruff enough times. (even xx xx xxxx xxxxx is pretty much on a finesse.

The other main reason for treating this as balanced is that I hate auctions which start (GF opener)-(relay)-3♦, if partner bids 3♥ I can't even be sure it's a 5 card suit (xxx Jxxx xx xxxxx?). Because of this, if treating it as a balanced hand is a logical alternative, I will treat is as such.

Partner's hand was x Txx 9xxxx AJxx, heart finesse was working so emerged with 11 tricks beating everyone who stayed in 5♦. It was a top at the time of scoring, but I suspect 1 or 2 pairs might have bid it. I will check next time I'm at the club.

How often does partner bid 3♥ over 2X 2Y 3♦ without ♥? This seems like not only poor evaluation but a poor system as well. Partner's actual hand is a great example of why it's not great to call this balanced, even if he should have bid again.

[jdonn]

jjbrr, on Apr 13 2010, 02:44 PM, said:

nit

It tilts me that you guys keep saying "solid 5-card suit"

Neither of you have ever seen anyone with Txxxx before?

/nit

You tilt too easily.

I have gone down in 2♦ before with an A (that wasn't ruffed out) and AKQJT9x of trumps. I should know nothing is "solid".

[Jlall]

We may belong in diamonds or spades or hearts or slam... 3N seems pretty bad.

[Fluffy]

Jlall, on Apr 13 2010, 08:00 PM, said:

We may belong in diamonds or spades or hearts or slam... 3N seems pretty bad.

toona would say ... or to clubs, or to no trump, or to part score....

[dburn]

Not ridiculous to add 2♠ to the poll options, at least. May be ridiculous to bid it, but I'm not so sure. Don't begin to understand 3NT - however ridiculous 2♠ is, 3NT is ridiculouser.