[Alexcl]

Scoring: MP

Partner opens 1NT (14-16), RHO pass

---

What's your bidding plan?

ATT it was easy after partner superaccepted my transfer to ♦, and placed the contract in 3NT when I showed my singleton spade.

[mikegill]

I would show an invite in diamonds however you go about doing that.

[whereagles]

straight 5D, worried of missing 6

[Bbradley62]

whereagles, on Aug 25 2010, 04:38 PM, said:

straight 5D, worried of missing 6

Worried? Partner has less than half of the missing HCP and you're worried that he can cover 4 of your 5 losers?

[Free]

I'd start with Stayman.

If partner denies a 4 card Major, I'll just bid 5♦.
If partner shows 4♥ I'll bid 4♥.
If partner shows 4♠ I'll bid 3♦ (GF 4♥-5+♦) followed by 5♦. 5♦ immediately would be exclusion RKCB I think.

[pooltuna]

Bbradley62, on Aug 25 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

whereagles, on Aug 25 2010, 04:38 PM, said:

straight 5D, worried of missing 6

Worried? Partner has less than half of the missing HCP and you're worried that he can cover 4 of your 5 losers?

That's because whenever he holds this hand his partner is dealt

♠Axx
♥AKx
♦Axx
♣xxxx

or

♠xxxx
♥AKx
♦Axx
♣Axx

so he doesn't have to worry about the large morass of 1NT hands where 5♦ has 3 fast losers

[gwnn]

Quote

ATT it was easy after partner superaccepted my transfer to ♦, and placed the contract in 3NT when I showed my singleton spade.

why the spade and not the club?

[Free]

gwnn, on Aug 26 2010, 02:37 PM, said:

Quote

ATT it was easy after partner superaccepted my transfer to ♦, and placed the contract in 3NT when I showed my singleton spade.

why the spade and not the club?

♠ shortness can probably be shown lower (3♠ instead of 4♣)

[Phil]

I agree with your approach.

Slam is not very likely opposite a 14-16 NT.

[whereagles]

Bbradley62, on Aug 25 2010, 11:47 PM, said:

whereagles, on Aug 25 2010, 04:38 PM, said:

straight 5D, worried of missing 6

Worried? Partner has less than half of the missing HCP and you're worried that he can cover 4 of your 5 losers?

A 1NT of 14-16 has an expectancy of 3,5-4 cover cards. I have 5 losers, so ON AVERAGE, the hand will make 11,5-12 tricks. I reiteriate this is ON AVERAGE.

Of course, if you have some gadget that shows this hand approximately, or can be manipulated controlledly in this case, by all means use it. If you don't have one (I don't have one), you can play the odds. And the odds favor making 5, with chances at 6. I chose to bid 5 because of the lack of aces.

[manudude03]

I think I transfer and bid 3N opposite acceptance. The problem with cover cards is that it assumes you have a reasonably balanced hand, this doesn't come close to qualifying.

[jdonn]

The cover card argument is wrong here because we are off all 4 aces, plus a king for our fifth loser. Partner will average his expected amount of cover cards when they are the expected amount of aces kings and queens. Here we obviously belong in 6♦ much less than half the time.

[gwnn]

Free, on Aug 26 2010, 02:15 PM, said:

gwnn, on Aug 26 2010, 02:37 PM, said:

Quote

ATT it was easy after partner superaccepted my transfer to ♦, and placed the contract in 3NT when I showed my singleton spade.

why the spade and not the club?

♠ shortness can probably be shown lower (3♠ instead of 4♣)

I think I wanted to make the point that it's not quite fine to show just one singleton when you have two. It doesn't mean we found the best game if we show 50% of our singletons and then leave the decision to partner.

[cherdanno]

I will bookmark whereagles' post just in case I need some ammunition to make fun of loser count at some point.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Aug 26 2010, 06:35 PM, said:

The cover card argument is wrong here because we are off all 4 aces, plus a king for our fifth loser. Partner will average his expected amount of cover cards when they are the expected amount of aces kings and queens. Here we obviously belong in 6♦ much less than half the time.

It's not wrong because the LTC makes an adjustment when you lack controls. I can't remember the exact formula, but this particular hand should have like 6 losers instead of the canonical 5.

I didn't mention the adjustment not to cause more entropy lol.

[jdonn]

Ah so you didn't tell us the mystery rule adjustment, then answered the question as though it didn't exist right down to your worry about missing slam. Thanks for clarifying.

[Alexcl]

Free, on Aug 26 2010, 09:15 AM, said:

gwnn, on Aug 26 2010, 02:37 PM, said:

why the spade and not the club?

♠ shortness can probably be shown lower (3♠ instead of 4♣)

The exact sequence was (opps quite): 1NT-2NT-3♣-3♠-3NT. 3♠ was "short spades, place the contract in 3NT o 5♦".

I had two problems: first was to stayman or to show the long diamonds. Second was to treat it as an invitation in diamonds or a FG hand (in case my p didn't superaccept).

My p had downgraded a 4=3=3=3 17 count with AJx in ♦ to 1NT, so was happy to accept any invitation.