[mikeh]

For me the bidding is fine.

The reality is that each partner has a minimum for the action, so the contract is marginal. Big Deal! If this is the worst contract that you ever reach, you do not bid enough.

It seems clear from the post that the ♥finesse lost and the ♣ A was in the wrong hand. Ok, for those of you who think that either partner overbid, reverse the EW hands and play 2N! Let's see: 5♥ tricks, 2♣ tricks, two pointed Aces and chances in both ♦ and ♠ for extra tricks.

2N by partner over 2♥ is silly. He has 2 Aces, folks! He has strength in his long suit! Aces are significantly under-valued in the 4321 count (K's also, to a lesser degree, while Q's and J's are over-valued).

3♦ would be even siller. Imagine catching opener with Kxx Kx AJxx AQ10x

Try keeping a competent imp player out of slam over 3♦!

Or Jxx Kx AKxx AQxx: try reaching 3N now.

3♦ is an offer to play in game or slam in a red suit: including that well-known red suit, ♦! Does North really want to suggest an 11 trick (or higher) ♦ contract?

The problem with polls like this one is that we all have a tendency to distort our choices because we 'know' that the correct bid or play did not work, and we try to rationalize making a choice that would work on the given hand.

BTW, take the ♥ hook. It is your best chance to make, and as others have posted, those in 4♥ will be no better off than you.... and if your opps miss game, don't worry... you'll probably beat them anyway.

[kgr]

..♥ finesse did loose to Q (RHO had Qx).
To my surprise RHO did return a small ♦ on which I played the 9, loosing to J of LHO. LHO did play ♦ 6 for K and A.
I did now cash 3 ♥ tricks, throwing 2 ♠'s. (RHO did throw 3 ♠'s; LHO 2 ♣'s).
And then I played ♦ to my Q on which LHO did threw ♣A !
LHO was left with ♠KQ ♣A92. If he does not throw the ♣A he would get a throw in with ♠Q (..maybe).

[1eyedjack]

Bidding seems OK to me. I can sympathise with 2N rebid by responder, but would punt game myself. Having shown the hearts, the singleton club is the next most relevant feature of responder's hand, but you need the mechanism to show it (which do exist). Ironically that may steer you even faster into 3NT (which seems to have at least as good chances as 4H). Temporising with 3D has the advantage that you may find a 5-3 Spade fit if one exists, which would be lost if you go straight to 3N after transfer.

If responder habitually rebids 3NT with a side suit singleton then I would be inclined as opener to convert back to 4H with 3 card support. But if responder can be relied upon to be balanced then I would also have left it with the 4333 hand. E Torbjorn Lindeloef did some sort of computer simulation in support of the design of Cobra back at around the turn of the 80s. I never saw the underlying data but he firmly concluded that you should play in 3N with a 5-3 major fit when both hands are balanced. Does not seem to get much support these days.

As to the play, the comment about keeping the danger hand off lead is relevant if you only need 4 Heart tricks for the contract. Here you have little chance without bringing in the Hearts for no losers (despite what actually happened), so I would go for the isolated percentage play in Hearts, which is to finesse. It risks going a lot more down. At MatchPoints if you reckon that 1-down is a salvagable result then you might go for the safety I guess.

[coyot]

1eyedjack, on Jul 22 2005, 12:15 PM, said:

E Torbjorn Lindeloef did some sort of computer simulation in support of the design of Cobra back at around the turn of the 80s. I never saw the underlying data but he firmly concluded that you should play in 3N with a 5-3 major fit when both hands are balanced. Does not seem to get much support these days.

As to the play, the comment about keeping the danger hand off lead is relevant if you only need 4 Heart tricks for the contract. Here you have little chance without bringing in the Hearts for no losers (despite what actually happened), so I would go for the isolated percentage play in Hearts, which is to finesse. It risks going a lot more down. At MatchPoints if you reckon that 1-down is a salvagable result then you might go for the safety I guess.

It gets some support ... i.e. a lot of people I know play 1M-3NT as 12-15 balanced with 3card support.

[mikeh]

1eyedjack, on Jul 22 2005, 12:15 PM, said:

Temporising with 3D has the advantage that you may find a 5-3 Spade fit if one exists, which would be lost if you go straight to 3N after transfer.

I never saw the underlying data but he firmly concluded that you should play in 3N with a 5-3 major fit when both hands are balanced. Does not seem to get much support these days.

[QUOTE]

I doubt that many players use the sequence 1N 2♦ 2♥ 3♦ 3♠ to show a 5 card ♠ suit

It is more common, I think, to play 3♠ as an ambiguous bid, showing with either concern about the unbid suit (intending to pass 3N should responder bid it) or a good hand in support of responder's second suit: intending to pull 3N to show a forward-going hand with a fit. This approach is far more practical than hoping that responder, who is at least 5-4 and often 5-5 in the reds, can raise ♠.

As for playing 3N with a 5-3 major fit, in the games in which I play, this is common on 1N - transfer auctions: opener is expected to use judgement, and often times 9 tricks are easier than 10. And sometimes you can score 9 tricks in NT when a bad trump break dooms the suit contract. Personally, I usually pass 3N with balanced hands containing stoppers outside, and bid the major only with an unstopped side suit or a ruffing value in my hand. I am also more inclined to pass 3N with extras than with a minimum: because possession of the extras increases the likelihood of nine tricks on power and diminshes the chances of their small/intermediate trumps becoming a nuisance should they be able to score ruffs or have trump break badly. On the given hand, I would pass despite being minimum because of the slow nature of my hand, the possession of stoppers and the lack of ruffing values

[1eyedjack]

mikeh, on Jul 22 2005, 01:42 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Jul 22 2005, 12:15 PM, said:

Temporising with 3D has the advantage that you may find a 5-3 Spade fit if one exists, which would be lost if you go straight to 3N after transfer.

I doubt that many players use the sequence 1N 2♦ 2♥ 3♦ 3♠ to show a 5 card ♠ suit

It is more common, I think, to play 3♠ as an ambiguous bid, showing with either concern about the unbid suit (intending to pass 3N should responder bid it) or a good hand in support of responder's second suit: intending to pull 3N to show a forward-going hand with a fit. This approach is far more practical than hoping that responder, who is at least 5-4 and often 5-5 in the reds, can raise ♠.

On reflection, you are right.

In my preferred method described at:
http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=37839

it would go one of the following 3 ways depend on which way the wind blows:

Sequence 1

1N.........2C (1)
2H (2)....P (3)

Sequence 2

1N.........2C (1)
2H (2)....3H (4)
3N (5).....P (6)

Sequence 3

1N.........2C (1)
2H (2)....3H (4)
3S (7)....4C (8)
4H (5).....P (6)

(1) Transfer to (4+) Hearts or balanced GF
(2) Minimum opener, fewer than 4 Hearts
(3) Arguable judgement call, but at least playing lower than anyone else who stays out of game
(4) Arguable judgement call, GF with Club shortage and 5-4 in the reds either way round, but fewer than 4 Spades.
(5) Contract suggestion
(6) Contract suggestion respected
(7) Further shape relay
(8) 5th Heart (and only 4 Diamonds)

In this method, assuming that responder takes the plunge and game forces despite the discouraging 2H rebid by opener, if opener has 5 Spades (and particularly if he has only doubleton Heart as well) he may reasonably assume a playable Spade fit (although he may take a look at his wasted Club honours before committing), and the Spade contract may come to light.

[han]

Let me try to summarize the discussion about 3D:

If you play that responder must always bid this way with 5-4, then opener can happily pass 3NT with many 4333 hands after the auction 1NT-2D-2H-3NT. Indeed, responder has promised 5332 shape, and 3NT is likely to play better.

Playing this way however, the 3D bid becomes somewhat ambiguous, since opener cannot be sure that responder is really interested in playing in this suit. Therefore you miss out it gets harder to bid some minor suit slams.

The alternative is that 1NT-2D-2H-3m honestly shows interest in the bid suit. A consequence is that opener should almost always bid 4M over 1NT-2D-2H-3NT when (s)he has 3 hearts.


Playing IMPs, I would prefer the second method. When playing MPs the first might have more appeal, not sure.

[han]

helene_t, on Jul 22 2005, 06:11 AM, said:

Counted? What has hand evaluation to do with counting? Not sure I understand ....

Wholeheartedly agree with this comment, but I would have opened 1NT too. It takes more than 4333 shape to deter me from opening 1NT.

[keylime]

I admit. I confess. I finesse. When it loses I will atone to partner best I can.

[1eyedjack]

Hannie, on Jul 22 2005, 04:28 PM, said:

Let me try to summarize the discussion about 3D:

If you play that responder must always bid this way with 5-4, then opener can happily pass 3NT with many 4333 hands after the auction 1NT-2D-2H-3NT. Indeed, responder has promised 5332 shape, and 3NT is likely to play better.

Playing this way however, the 3D bid becomes somewhat ambiguous, since opener cannot be sure that responder is really interested in playing in this suit. Therefore you miss out it gets harder to bid some minor suit slams.

The alternative is that 1NT-2D-2H-3m honestly shows interest in the bid suit. A consequence is that opener should almost always bid 4M over 1NT-2D-2H-3NT when (s)he has 3 hearts.


Playing IMPs, I would prefer the second method. When playing MPs the first might have more appeal, not sure.

Good post.

A distribution GF hand with an unbiddable second suit is a rarety. Wherever you place it, ie ( a ) rebid 3N and conceal the unbiddable side suit, or ( b ) rebid the side suit and ensure that the 3NT rebid is trustworthy, partner is never going to believe that you have that hand. So partner should perhaps normally pass the 3NT rebid IF you subscribe to the (contentious) view that the 5-3 major fit should be eschewed when playing balanced opposite balanced.

[mike777]

3D game force

Whether to rebid 3d on this hand is debatable. I love to bid out my shape but I hate to rebid a new suit on the 3 level holding xxxx. This looks like a suited hand but 3nt needs one less trick and can often make on poor defense.

Baring some complicated relay or other agreements 3S must agree D and be a cuebid. It is not some 5 card spade suit. Playing 3d or 3s as some confusing mismutch just makes bridge too hard and you miss your minor suit slams. Responder can always rebid 3nt over 3s.

With all of that said I can live with 3nt or 3d rebid here. If it does not work out then blame the "rub of the green" and will try and bid the other choice next time.

The one thing I do not like is bidding 2nt which is just a "transfer blame to pard bid".

Lot of meat on this one.

[the hog]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 22 2005, 10:03 PM, said:

Hi,

asking North to bid 3D at his 2nd turn is
ridiculous, I would use stronger words,
but there may be children out there.

North's diamond suit is not existing, i.e. he
has no business introducing the suit.

If you require North to bid always diamonds
you will most of the time help only the opponents
in their search for an lead.

As a side note: Bidding 3D opposite a unknown
partner is aksing for trouble, because he may pass.

With kind regards
Marlowe

So you think its ridiculous do you? Try the following layout. 5D is an excellent spot and has chances for 6 and you play in 3NT. What is ridiculous now?
3D is clear cut on the hand.

♠ A62
♥ AJ862
D 8542
♣ 3

♠ Kxx
♥ K7
D AKQxx
♣ xxx