[MrAce]

---

2NT=minors less than opener
DBL= No agreement, exp partner, but obviously take out.
IMPS

[JLOGIC]

4H? I see no reasonable alternative.

[the_clown]

4♥.

3♥ is un underbid, 3♦ is forcing but will only complicate things (and partner may jump to 4♠ if he is 6-4), and considering any other bids is madness.

[wanoff]

Madness it might be, but you could just take a plus.

[Phil]

Nice pass Timo. Takes a little nad but I agree with it.

[jogs]

3♥. I'm an underbidder. Like to maximize my chances of a plus score. If double guaranteed 5-5 in the majors, 4♥ would be clear. Don't think the ♦Q or ♣J is worth much for offense.

[Phil]

3♦ should be 5-5.

[rduran1216]

4H by a mile.

[mike777]

rduran1216, on 2012-June-02, 22:22, said:

4H by a mile.

by a mile?

what does that mean?

[gnasher]

I'd pass, even without the UI from Phil's comments.

I think it's normal to play that 3♦ shows 5-5 and double covers the less extreme shapes. If he has something like AKJxx AKxx xx xx, we can't make 4♥, but 3♣ will usually go one down on a trump lead. Move one of partner's aces to a minor, and we'll take a comfortable penalty against 3♣, with 4♥ in difficulties.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2012-June-03, 04:32, said:

I'd pass, even without the UI from Phil's comments.

I think it's normal to play that 3♦ shows 5-5 and double covers the less extreme shapes. If he has something like AKJxx AKxx xx xx, we can't make 4♥, but 3♣ will usually go one down on a trump lead. Move one of partner's aces to a minor, and we'll take a comfortable penalty against 3♣, with 4♥ in difficulties.

Interesting scenario. Partner can not have AKxx when we do. However, if your assumption is correct, that partner can not have 5-5 in the majors, then partner will almost always hold only 4 hearts (where are all the spades?) and likewise will have more than one club, because you know where already 10 diamonds are, though I doubt that your chances are better in 4♥ if partner is short in clubs.

I tried to simulate this scenario.
My assumptions were:

East at least 5-5 in the minors 5-10 HCP
West clubs at least as long as diamonds
North 4 hearts, 5 spades at least 12 HCP.

Result with 100 deals (It took DMPRO a long time even to create 100 deals)

4♥ made on 65 deals , average number of tricks was 9.2 tricks.
3♣ made on just 2 deals, average number of tricks West made was 6.5 tricks.

For me pass is right on the money

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

rhm, on 2012-June-03, 05:15, said:

I tried to simulate this scenario.
My assumptions were:

East at least 5-5 in the minors 5-10 HCP
West clubs at least as long as diamonds
North 4 hearts, 5 spades at least 12 HCP.

Thanks for posting your exact simulation criteria.

If these are East's criteria for opening 2NT, then I agree with pass. Hoaever, I think most would require some constraints on suit quality before opening 2NT.

Also, I don't think you should build into the simulation that partner has 5=spades and 4=hearts. If you require 4-4 or 5-4 in the majors, this simulation will notice by itself that 5=4 is more likely than 4=5.

[mgoetze]

Well, someone at the table did have 5-5 in the majors... LOL...

[Phil]

gnasher, on 2012-June-03, 04:32, said:

I'd pass, even without the UI from Phil's comments.

I think it's normal to play that 3♦ shows 5-5 and double covers the less extreme shapes. If he has something like AKJxx AKxx xx xx, we can't make 4♥, but 3♣ will usually go one down on a trump lead. Move one of partner's aces to a minor, and we'll take a comfortable penalty against 3♣, with 4♥ in difficulties.

Timo's style is AI to everyone on the forums

[han]

I was the doubler and was 4-4-3-2. Building a simulation where partner is at least 5-4 in the majors is unnecessary. The fact that you are 1-4 in the majors and opener is (somewhat) short in both automatically makes it more likely that partner has 5 spades.

[ByChechi]

I think trivial . Whole deal maybe is :
.................♠AJxxx
.................♥Qxx
.................♦Axx
♠KQxxx.....♣A10....♠xx
♥J10xxx.................♥x
♦..-.........................♦KJxxx
♣xxx.........♠x.........♣KQxxx
.................♥AKxx
.................♦Q10xxx
.................♣Jxx
What you want to play? I think 3♣DBL...! BUT...
I will say 3♦ - natural and forsing ofcourse,
with implied meaning 3NT...

[gszes]

AT MP if we are in slam territory I can see passing the x because setting 3c 3 tricks
becomes much more likely and could be a huge MP score (in what is probably an
very unusal auction).


AT IMPS it seems like way too much risk of missing a game for a more likely down 1
or down 2 if p is close to the min for their x. Our hand would like to ruff spades and
pull trumps but we will have to settle for leading trumps. There is no reason to
assume p is near minimum for their x. We could be selling out for 500 when we
are due 980 this may be acceptable risk at MP where just getting 500 might be great
but at imps it starts to become a large loss when slam is available.

bid 4h at IMPS Who knows how high p can go??????

[mgoetze]

gszes, on 2012-June-03, 13:43, said:

(in what is probably an very unusal auction).

I would like to point out that this is an international forum.

[jogs]

han, on 2012-June-03, 10:17, said:

I was the doubler and was 4-4-3-2. Building a simulation where partner is at least 5-4 in the majors is unnecessary. The fact that you are 1-4 in the majors and opener is (somewhat) short in both automatically makes it more likely that partner has 5 spades.

This thread was started by MrAce. Were you his partner?

[MrAce]

jogs, on 2012-June-03, 19:17, said:

This thread was started by MrAce. Were you his partner?

Yes