[bluecalm]

♠8752 ♥K3 ♦AJT2 ♣K92

1♦ - 1♠
2♣ - 3♦
3NT - ?

Partner is very good player. Bidding is natural, 1♦ practically promised 5 ( 4 with 4-4-4-1 or 5-4 minors)
3♦ was invitational.

Now what ? Does scoring matter ?

[whereagles]

It's not obvious at all... Perhaps pard has 1354, but then again he may have 2254 with small spades and Ax of hearts. Perhaps they lead a heart, perhaps you can't make 5m that easily.

I would risk a pull to 4♦ though.

[pooltuna]

What were partner's options over 3♦? Anyway partner could have the miracle hand x Axx KQxxx AQxx where 3NT is real iffy if they find a ♠ lead while 6♦ has good odds. I would assume 3NT was based on partner liking his ♥ stopper plus extras so 4♣ for me.

[hanp]

I think passing is a serious error.

[JLOGIC]

lol at thread title

[JLOGIC]

hanp, on Jul 18 2010, 08:08 AM, said:

I think passing is a serious error.

Meh this seems extreme, if partner is 2254 passing is probably right (Jx Ax KQxxx Axxx etc).

[hanp]

I'm not saying pass can't be the winning call, of course it can. But with Ax of hearts partner might have bid 3H. Also, partner might have opened or rebid 1NT with 2254 shape.

I think 1354 is quite a bit more likely.

[JLOGIC]

hanp, on Jul 18 2010, 08:21 AM, said:

I'm not saying pass can't be the winning call, of course it can. But with Ax of hearts partner might have bid 3H. Also, partner might have opened or rebid 1NT with 2254 shape.

I think 1354 is quite a bit more likely.

Don't agree at all with partner bidding 3H with 2254. He is not really interested in 5D with that shape.

On the other hand 1354 is often interested in avoiding 3N, and rightsiding becomes more of an issue, so I would expect that shape to bid 3H much more often.

That said, as you say 2254 is just less likely than 1354 for hands where partner didn't open 1N.

The idea of rebidding 1N with 2254 and Ax of hearts is pretty lol to me though.

[bluecalm]

Quote

lol at thread title

Well, I passed without much thought at MP's hence the title.
I am not defending this decision though. In fact I think it might be serious error.

[MarkDean]

I think that I would have reflexively passed at the table, but that that is wrong, and 5♦ is much more likely to be a winning contract.

[hanp]

bluecalm, on Jul 18 2010, 08:49 AM, said:

Quote

lol at thread title

Well, I passed without much thought at MP's hence the title.
I am not defending this decision though. In fact I think it might be serious error.

Saying it is a serious error is a bit extreme.

[Hanoi5]

I think I'd also pass at MP's but would go on at imps.

[jdonn]

Non-serious error seems about right.

[JLOGIC]

jdonn, on Jul 18 2010, 04:16 PM, said:

Non-serious error seems about right.

♥♥

[EricK]

I wouldn't be surprised if bidding 1♠ on this sort of hand loses more than it gains at most levels of bridge.

[JLOGIC]

EricK, on Jul 19 2010, 04:34 AM, said:

I wouldn't be surprised if bidding 1♠ on this sort of hand loses more than it gains at most levels of bridge.

Yeah I hate finding those 4-4 major suit fits everyone talks about.

[EricK]

JLOGIC, on Jul 19 2010, 10:12 AM, said:

EricK, on Jul 19 2010, 04:34 AM, said:

I wouldn't be surprised if bidding 1♠ on this sort of hand loses more than it gains at most levels of bridge.

Yeah I hate finding those 4-4 major suit fits everyone talks about.

That can happen on occasions (but of course it is less likely to happen if systemically you are allowed to bypass such suits). On the other hand you can get disasters such as playing in 3NT with no stop in the suit, or getting to 4♠ with xxxx opposite xxxx. Maybe these things don't happen to you because you are an expert playing with an expert partner. But at most levels of bridge below expert I am doubtful there is a gain from bidding terrible suits on hands like this.

[JLOGIC]

EricK, on Jul 19 2010, 12:41 PM, said:

JLOGIC, on Jul 19 2010, 10:12 AM, said:

EricK, on Jul 19 2010, 04:34 AM, said:

I wouldn't be surprised if bidding 1♠ on this sort of hand loses more than it gains at most levels of bridge.

Yeah I hate finding those 4-4 major suit fits everyone talks about.

That can happen on occasions (but of course it is less likely to happen if systemically you are allowed to bypass such suits). On the other hand you can get disasters such as playing in 3NT with no stop in the suit, or getting to 4♠ with xxxx opposite xxxx. Maybe these things don't happen to you because you are an expert playing with an expert partner. But at most levels of bridge below expert I am doubtful there is a gain from bidding terrible suits on hands like this.

Of course playing xxxx opp xxxx can happen to me. And of course I can play 3N with no spade stopper after bidding 1S...I often don't mind that since it's hard for them to lead my suit!

I guess you prefer giving a limit raise in diamonds of some kind (like an inverted raise). I think as a "non expert" if you don't have a system dedicated to finding 4-4 fits after doing this, you will end up missing almost all 4-4 spade fits. On this hand, I think that would be very bad on average, I'm prime and have a ruffing value.

Yes you will also find xxxx opp xxxx and that could usually be wrong, but when I have game going values I think the odds of us having xxxx opp xxxx will be pretty low. I am happy to pay off to this. I think this rarely happens to me because it rarely happens

And yes, you do have the option of finding 3N after 1D 1S 2S, expert or not. For me (and the way most people play) I will rarely have the option of finding spades after 1D 2D.

I have even tried to come up with a structure that was reasonable where we can find 4-4 fits after an inverted minor so that I can raise with a GF hand and 4-5, but even that becomes a big hassle, and a lot of your room becomes dedicated to that when it would have been easier to just start with 1S and later raise diamonds. I think it will be tough to come up with a structure where you are raising with 4-4 and less than GF values.

But I think you were implying that even people who cannot do it systemically should do it and generally give up on spades because the spades are so poor. To me this would be analagous to not opening 1S because I had 5 small, this early in the auction my goal is still just to find my fits. Maybe if I was 4333 with NTy values where I'd view missing a 4-4 spade fit as more often acceptable I'd be with you.

But on that hand type we fare worse on the "getting to 3N with no spade stopper" scale. And then we haven't even bid our spades! Of course with good bidding you can often avoid this trap, but again I am happy to pay off sometimes in the name of not unilaterally deciding to give up on one of our most likely games with our first bid of the auction.