[WasWinM]

---

Imps. What do you do now?

[mike777]

Pass

But I never get these auctions right

[mw64ahw]

Takeout shape so I X, don't mind if it gets passed out with what looks like 4 quckish tricks.

[mikeh]

Passing is losing bridge, imo, even though it rates to be spectacular if it’s right…as in if we end up going for a number.

When Cohen published To Bid or Not to Bid, Hamman reviewed it, iirc, by crossing out ‘or not to bid’.

Anyway, there are four possible actions.

Worst: 3N. I have one stopper at best and no apparent source of tricks. I need a lot of help from partner and, if 3N makes, we’re usually (imo) going to make a suit game as well

Pass: will win every now and then but, I think, is a long term loser.

X. We have ok shape, given we’re under pressure and partner will know this. But do we want the lead coming through my spades? And don’t we have a real risk of playing a 4=3 minor suit contract? Btw, I cannot construct a hand on which partner would pass.

4H. My choice could be horribly wrong, but so too could every other choice. Imagine partner with a blah 2=3=4=4. Wouldn’t you rather declare 4H than put this hand down as dummy in a minor?

[awm]

I like double followed by 4♥. Most of the time partner will be bidding 4m, allowing me to complete the sequence. For me this shows a flexible hand, allowing partner to remove it with short hearts and a long minor. If I just bid 4♥ directly partner is presumably passing with xx x Axxxx KQxxx or with xx xx AJTxxxx Kx. The risk is that I “wrong-side” the 4♥ game or that we play 5m when partner has a good hand with a long minor that also includes three hearts.

[P_Marlowe]

3NT.

I quite often hand out undoubled vul. undertricks, expensive.

[kgr]

TESTING "Bid Analysis" in my program with the given hand. See below for results. I used 2000 generated hands and the input limitations as indicated.
I gave 5 end contracts to verify.
4H looks best and 3NT a close second. As suggested by Mikeh.
DBL seems less good as it will often lead to a minor contract. But the flexibility of DBL is more difficult to measure. You never know that partner can bid the correct end contract 3NT, 4H, 4m, 5m
Note: In second analysis I did put North 0-14 HCP. But it is difficult to enter limitations for North that corresponds to his Pass. (I don't know why the score for S is higher on average with this extra limitation for North, I assume it is caused by the random hands that were selected)
= - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
Input:
- All Vuln
- South Hand
- North: 0-14 HCP
- East: 0-13 HCP; 3-4cS
- West: 6-10 HCP; 6-6cS
Analysis on 2000 deal(s).

Contract Make% Score S Avg tricks
----------------------------------------------------
4H S 35% 80 8.83
3Sx W 33% 59 7.82
3NT S 34% 55 7.81
4D N 29% -163 8.17
5C N 12% -256 7.78

Make% is mainly useful for IMP. Expected score includes vulnerability, doubles/redoubles and overtricks.
= - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
Input:
- Nobody Vuln (was mistake in Input)
- South Hand
- East: 0-13 HCP; 3-4cS
- West: 6-10 HCP; 6-6cS
Analysis on 2000 deal(s).

Contract Make% Score S Avg tricks
----------------------------------------------------
4H S 36% 88 8.84
3NT S 35% 71 7.82
3Sx W 31% 21 7.80
4D N 28% -64 8.13
5C N 11% -117 7.78

Make% is mainly useful for IMP. Expected score includes vulnerability, doubles/redoubles and overtricks.
= - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
Input:
- Nobody Vuln (was mistake in Input)
- South Hand
- North: 0-14 HCP
- East: 0-13 HCP; 3-4cS
- West: 6-10 HCP; 6-6cS
Analysis on 2000 deal(s).

Contract Make% Score S Avg tricks
----------------------------------------------------
4H S 37% 96 8.90
3NT S 36% 79 7.88
3Sx W 31% 31 7.76
4D N 29% -62 8.14
5C N 14% -105 7.82

Make% is mainly useful for IMP. Expected score includes vulnerability, doubles/redoubles and overtricks.