[andrei]

---

IMPS
2S: 5+ spades and 4+ minor

[mikeh]

I think that if you want to save, against good players, you save the round before. Bidding 3 then 4 gives them way too much information. Now they have forcing passes, doubles, etc. I am not saying I would have saved the round before...it was far from clear that they would/could bid 3N, and they won't be bidding 4♥ (altho you'd love it if they did). I think, however, that saving now is wrong in principle even if it is right on the actual layout.

[the hog]

4S immediately, pass now.

[WesleyC]

As usual I completely agree with mikeh!

With such a chunky holding in hearts, there's also a possibility that 3NT is going down. Partner is allowed to hold a hands like [Qxxxx x AQJx xxx] or [Axxxx xx KQxx xx] where the opps only have 8 tricks.

[rmnka447]

Pass.

mikeh and WesleyC comments are right on point.

What was there 3 NT game bid based upon? Much more likely than not, the game has simply been bid on HC strength. That means they probably have plenty of winners to cash against any save you make.

If you are going to save, then you are going to need something to offset those winners. That something has to be distribution, so you and partner can ruff out some of their winners.

Unfortunately, your hand has a relatively flat distribution. There's no ruffing "protection" in your hand from the opponents cashing side suit winners except your high card holding in ♥.

Where you want to consider saving is when you hold shortness in suits especially suits partner is likely to be long in. Hands like ♠ J109x ♥ Axxxx ♦ - ♣ xxxx or even ♠ J109x ♥ Axx ♦ Jxxxx ♣ x are much more conducive to saving. With partner marked with 9+ cards in ♠ and a minor, ♥ would seem to be the suit partner is most likely to be short in. So shortness outside of ♥ would seem to be better than shortness in ♥. Likewise, length in one minor and shortness in the other will likely complement partner's holding. If you both have length in the same minor, it may limit the winners and potential ruffs in that suit. If you neither holds the other's minor, then a potential crossruff may be available.

[mycroft]

I'm joining everybody. One of my mottos is "once you've decided your hand is X, it's X, live with it." The issue is that if you bid 4♠ now, then you're saying that 3♠ the last round was a mistake. And it might have been. But it might not have been, in which case 4♠ *is* a mistake. So, once you change your mind, you're guaranteed to have made a mistake; it's just a matter of which one (and if it is the former, you're giving them much more information to make the last decision).

Now, obviously, this does not supersede "re-evaluate your hand as the auction goes along." But here, absolutely nothing has changed - partner still has a 6-card suit and a weak hand, you're still white-on-red, they have enough strength to try 3NT if they have a spade stopper, which they do, ... So, you decided this hand was a 3♠ call because (one assumes) you have a shot at setting 3NT - which you certainly do if they don't have 7 minor tricks off the hoof to go along with the two major aces. If you didn't think you could set 3NT, then you should have bid 4♠ before. You chose not to, so back your judgement.

Now, maybe you only bid 3♠ here because either your area doesn't handle preempts well and 3♠ is often enough, or nobody else will push hard either, and you'll be going down one more than the field, or you haven't yet learned why you "preempt as hard as you're ever going to, the first time". Unfortunately, "maybe I can buy it for this" is usually a losing strategy.

[lamford]

Nothing to add to mikeh, except I am intrigued by the "other" (not Pass or 4S). Fortunately it is a closed poll, or men in white coats might be paying him or her a visit.

[mycroft]

I'm guessing the "other" is "call the TD, they can't bid 3NT over 4♠"

[tobycurtis]

I'm wondering whether a double here would be purely penalty, or whether it could have a lead-directing meaning. Dummy's double is suggestive of hearts, so ideally our double would be suggesting a heart lead?? Is that asking too much?

[the_clown]

Agree with 3♠, pass now. Bidding 4♠ the first time is asking for 800-1100, besides there is no guarantee they can make game.

[the hog]

mycroft, on 2014-December-04, 13:10, said:

I'm guessing the "other" is "call the TD, they can't bid 3NT over 4♠"

Correct. The "other" was my vote. 4S is my first bid as I stated.

[dicklont]

Pass. There is no garantee that they will make 3NT.
Of course they could have ♠A ♥A and 7 tricks from top in the minors, but changes are that the heart suit is a dissapointment, the spade stop could ♠Kxx and the minor suits don't run as smoothly as the had hoped.

[The_Badger]

I wasn't going to reply as 'Pass' seemed so so (and very very) obvious BUT what I'd like to know is what range is the 2♠opening bid and how much can we trust partner to open with a ♠ suit topped by 2 honours? (I presume the KQ or AQ here). Partner is (99% of the time I assume) still going to lead a ♠ against 3NT, and does dbl. commands him to lead a ♠, or does it ask him to try another suit? Mmmm....

Yes, I am contemplating dbl. as a bid, however unwise it seems...but it does depend on what sort of suits and hands partner opens non-vulnerable in 1st position.

There is a certain logic in this (in my opinion). Few partnerships are going to open 2♠ except if they have a 6 card suit, and just as few partnerships are going to be 'bounced' into a 3NT contract. If 3NT makes it is going to be a bad score for E/W anyway.

At IMPs -200 is usually a bad score, so if we can put it down by one trick (4♠ + 1 outside) then let's go for it.

All rather hypothetical: ok I'll be a wuss and 'Pass' as it just seems the sensible thing to do.

[helene_t]

Would it have been crazy to make a lead-directing 3♥ bid instead of 3♠?

[dicklont]

helene_t, on 2014-December-05, 08:21, said:

Would it have been crazy to make a lead-directing 3♥ bid instead of 3♠?

On the contrary, I think that is a great call.

[fourdad]

the hog, on 2014-December-04, 00:22, said:

4S immediately, pass now.

BINGO!!! 4!s right away!

[the_clown]

helene_t, on 2014-December-05, 08:21, said:

Would it have been crazy to make a lead-directing 3♥ bid instead of 3♠?

Not crazy, but it gives them one more round of bidding and may talk them out of 4♥. If I knew they are bidding 3N, I would bid 3♥.

[WesleyC]

I think 3H is a terrible choice! One of the main reasons you're bidding 3S on this hand is in the hope that the opponents will end up in 4H.

Also, you're relatively happy to get a spade lead!

[neilkaz]

WesleyC, on 2014-December-06, 07:40, said:

I think 3H is a terrible choice! One of the main reasons you're bidding 3S on this hand is in the hope that the opponents will end up in 4H.

Also, you're relatively happy to get a spade lead!

We agree.

[wank]

i'd save. people are spiting themselves. we took a reasonable gamble on the previous round, hoping they'd get to 4♥. the gamble lost, but that doesn't mean we should bend over and write -600. that they didn't bid 4♥ improves our hand for offense - partner is now likely to have at least 2 hearts (which also means a doubleton or shorter in the minors). with no aces, nothing in the minors and lho likely to have length there i make the opps big favourites to make 3nt