Help
It’s clear that NS don’t have an agreement about the 3♣ and 3♦ bids. I don’t think that it matters what their agreement was or what a textbook says. The real point is the 4NT after a very slow 3NT by S, that by a 1NT opener. I wouldn’t allow that and give an AS based on 3NT. Here the results at the other tables might play a role. From your description it’s clear that 11 tricks are almost unavoidable, but that’s not the result all had. Maybe a weighed score 50% 3NT+2 and 50%3NT+1.
A thin slam bid UI, agreements
#21
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 834
- Joined: 2014-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Deventer, The Netherlands
Posted 2019-November-17, 02:39
Joost
#22
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,317
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2019-November-17, 15:12
sanst, on 2019-November-17, 02:39, said:
It’s clear that NS don’t have an agreement about the 3♣ and 3♦ bids. I don’t think that it matters what their agreement was or what a textbook says. The real point is the 4NT after a very slow 3NT by S, that by a 1NT opener. I wouldn’t allow that and give an AS based on 3NT. Here the results at the other tables might play a role. From your description it’s clear that 11 tricks are almost unavoidable, but that’s not the result all had. Maybe a weighed score 50% 3NT+2 and 50%3NT+1.
That's the main point I was interested to hear (or not), thanks.
For you, Ed and others who would like to evaluate possible AS scenarios more accurately, here is the full deal.
#23
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,121
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted 2019-November-21, 14:35
Without finding out what South thought she was doing with 3♣, and why North pulled 3NT, it's hard to say anything.
We have three issues here - two slow calls (passing UI that South either doesn't know how to bid this hand or has a hand that wants to do something else (esp. the slow 3NT)) and one passing of UI about the agreement. Any MI passed didn't affect the bidding or the defence, so that's not an issue.
I see a lot of people ascribing Expert analysis to the meanings of 3♦ and 3NT-in-response-to-3♦, but without other information, I'm not likely to assume that kind of analysis from a pair that doesn't know what 1NT-3♣ means, especially because they changed their system to minor-suit transfers, and didn't think to determine what the old sequence now means.
If North decided to play it as the old-fashioned (in my area) suit-set slam try, he has a powerhouse - controls and a now-solid suit, even a ruffing value. Partner's cards must be soft (except for the ♣AQ), so we should have the tricks. If I give this hand to anybody and tell them that 3♣ was a SSST, it will be hard to find someone that passes 3NT, no matter the speed. So I want to know if that's the case (without prompting) and what information he used to make that decision - and why he didn't provide that information to the opponents (but again, I don't think there's any damage from the MI).
Now I need to also hear how *at the time of the 3♦ call* he decided to take it as a SSST. Because the most expected information that a slow 3NT gives is "I really want to go on, but I don't want to miss 3NT."
What bothers me about this case (and makes me even more suspicious about delicate negative inferences from failure to bid 3M) is that South doesn't have her hesitations. South either has a mindless transfer to 3♣ and pass (or 3NT on superaccept) or a slam-3NT. And maybe it's a "oh what do I do now, partner doesn't know what I meant. And he bid a suit I don't have! Will 3NT have a play, or do I have to bid 4♣? And is that the same bad board when it goes down compared to everyone else who got to play 3♣?" So I want to know what South was thinking, so when it does go out to peer polling, I have a better idea about peers.
Because my initial feelings on this pair's skill level could be just as wrong as my feeling for what the [very slow] 3NT meant.
We have three issues here - two slow calls (passing UI that South either doesn't know how to bid this hand or has a hand that wants to do something else (esp. the slow 3NT)) and one passing of UI about the agreement. Any MI passed didn't affect the bidding or the defence, so that's not an issue.
I see a lot of people ascribing Expert analysis to the meanings of 3♦ and 3NT-in-response-to-3♦, but without other information, I'm not likely to assume that kind of analysis from a pair that doesn't know what 1NT-3♣ means, especially because they changed their system to minor-suit transfers, and didn't think to determine what the old sequence now means.
If North decided to play it as the old-fashioned (in my area) suit-set slam try, he has a powerhouse - controls and a now-solid suit, even a ruffing value. Partner's cards must be soft (except for the ♣AQ), so we should have the tricks. If I give this hand to anybody and tell them that 3♣ was a SSST, it will be hard to find someone that passes 3NT, no matter the speed. So I want to know if that's the case (without prompting) and what information he used to make that decision - and why he didn't provide that information to the opponents (but again, I don't think there's any damage from the MI).
Now I need to also hear how *at the time of the 3♦ call* he decided to take it as a SSST. Because the most expected information that a slow 3NT gives is "I really want to go on, but I don't want to miss 3NT."
What bothers me about this case (and makes me even more suspicious about delicate negative inferences from failure to bid 3M) is that South doesn't have her hesitations. South either has a mindless transfer to 3♣ and pass (or 3NT on superaccept) or a slam-3NT. And maybe it's a "oh what do I do now, partner doesn't know what I meant. And he bid a suit I don't have! Will 3NT have a play, or do I have to bid 4♣? And is that the same bad board when it goes down compared to everyone else who got to play 3♣?" So I want to know what South was thinking, so when it does go out to peer polling, I have a better idea about peers.
Because my initial feelings on this pair's skill level could be just as wrong as my feeling for what the [very slow] 3NT meant.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
#24
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,925
- Joined: 2009-July-13
- Location:England
Posted 2019-November-21, 16:33
sanst, on 2019-November-17, 02:39, said:
It’s clear that NS don’t have an agreement about the 3♣ and 3♦ bids. I don’t think that it matters what their agreement was or what a textbook says. The real point is the 4NT after a very slow 3NT by S, that by a 1NT opener. I wouldn’t allow that and give an AS based on 3NT. Here the results at the other tables might play a role. From your description it’s clear that 11 tricks are almost unavoidable, but that’s not the result all had. Maybe a weighed score 50% 3NT+2 and 50%3NT+1.
Well if east leads the 4♠ to the 10 it's entirely possible you don't make an overtrick at all in 3N as you could be down if you take a losing heart finesse and this looks like it might be a routine lead from 5, it's also not silly to play the J from dummy.