[MFA]

Obviously close. I can see myself passing here but only against some types of opponents. If I pull, I pull to 3♠.

I'm very pessimistic about partner letting me off the hook, if I pull to 3♠ or 4♦. Ken talks about the chance of making 3♠X, which I would estimate is exactly 0%. If 3♠X has any chance at all, partner would have bid at least 4♠ already.

[Lobowolf]

3♠ and hold on like they were doing in Twister when the tornado hit. Not to leave my list of obscure movie references at just one, the sanguine replies remind me of Billy Bob Thornton in The Ice Harvest: "Roy, you are one @#$% optimist if you think you're ever getting out of that trunk."

On the other hand, Roy DID get out of the trunk, so maybe I'm just too negative.

[kenrexford]

MFA, on Jun 3 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

Obviously close. I can see myself passing here but only against some types of opponents. If I pull, I pull to 3♠.

I'm very pessimistic about partner letting me off the hook, if I pull to 3♠ or 4♦. Ken talks about the chance of making 3♠X, which I would estimate is exactly 0%. If 3♠X has any chance at all, partner would have bid at least 4♠ already.

I'm not talking about the real chance of 3♠X making. I'm talking about the perceptional risk that I have a different hand, where 3♠ makes, when the opponent to my right is considering doubling or not.

[barryallen]

kenrexford, on Jun 3 2009, 08:43 PM, said:

MFA, on Jun 3 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

Obviously close. I can see myself passing here but only against some types of opponents. If I pull, I pull to 3♠.

I'm very pessimistic about partner letting me off the hook, if I pull to 3♠ or 4♦. Ken talks about the chance of making 3♠X, which I would estimate is exactly 0%. If 3♠X has any chance at all, partner would have bid at least 4♠ already.

I'm not talking about the real chance of 3♠X making. I'm talking about the perceptional risk that I have a different hand, where 3♠ makes, when the opponent to my right is considering doubling or not.

Unless that opponent delves into the think tank for an extended period, you will more than likely get raised to 4♠ by partner and any lingering doubts about doubling will have long gone.

The only solution I can see is some form of religion which requires no obvious sign of said request, such as a mantra, prayer mat, rosary or clasping of hands

[kenrexford]

Well, now I'm liking 3NT more. I think it's the most likely bid to get partner to shrug his shoulders and pass rather than shrugging his shoulders and bidding.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Jun 4 2009, 06:31 AM, said:

Well, now I'm liking 3NT more. I think it's the most likely bid to get partner to shrug his shoulders and pass rather than shrugging his shoulders and bidding.

And then the opponents shrug their shoulders and double, and shrug their shoulders and run the first 10 tricks.

But it's ok, partner doesn't really pass, he forces to slam opposite the values you've shown.

Agree with JLOL (you know which post).

[Codo]

One hand shows nothing, but partners hand was
AKJxx
A2
KQJ
AT8

As partner is known to have 16+ HCPS, the chance to play 3 ♠ are zero %.
So in my opinion, I had the choice to play 3 Heart X or 4 Spade or 5 Diamond.
(I did not thought about 6 NT, missed the 3 NT idea....)

I chose the first one, which leads to 3 ♥ X -2.
4 Spade is better, 5 Diamond at the other table failed. Maybe you do not need to reach 5 ♦ after 4 Diamond from us, but at least for them it was impossible.

[helene_t]

I don't think p will raise 4♦ to five. He will either bid 4♠, or he will bid 4♥ after which we try 4♠.

So most likely we will end up in 4♠ anyway. P might bid 5♦ over 4♦ but then again he might bid 5♠ over 3♠.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Jun 4 2009, 10:37 AM, said:

I don't think p will raise 4♦ to five. He will either bid 4♠, or he will bid 4♥ after which we try 4♠.

So most likely we will end up in 4♠ anyway. P might bid 5♦ over 4♦ but then again he might bid 5♠ over 3♠.

I really don't agree with either point Helene. If we bid 4♦ and partner bids 4♥, then I don't think we will bid 4♠ on xxx. And if we start 3♠ it seems obvious for partner to bid 4♥ then pass our 4♠ bid, forcing to 5 on his own is a huge overbid.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jun 4 2009, 09:53 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 4 2009, 06:31 AM, said:

Well, now I'm liking 3NT more.  I think it's the most likely bid to get partner to shrug his shoulders and pass rather than shrugging his shoulders and bidding.

And then the opponents shrug their shoulders and double, and shrug their shoulders and run the first 10 tricks.

But it's ok, partner doesn't really pass, he forces to slam opposite the values you've shown.

Agree with JLOL (you know which post).

Yes, but you are missing one thing.

Your partner might shrug his shoulder and pass.
Your RHO might shrug his shoulder and double.

But, you don't have to shrug your shoulders and pass the double. You could very easily now bid 4♦. That works.

On the second point -- partner bids slam. I still don't get this. I don't think it is practical to assign values to a 3NT call to the degree people are assigning values to the 3NT call.

[jdonn]

Yes, the insane degree of more than a stopperless 4 count.

[gnasher]

Over 4♦, one of 4♥ and 4♠ ought to show a flexible hand such as partner had.

I'm not sure what's normal, but I think 4♠ should show this hand, with 4♥ being a slam try for diamonds. That leaves no way to show a very strong one-suiter at the four level, but I think it's right on frequency grounds.

[kenrexford]

Strange that the discussion never seems to involve comparison issues.

The issue is not what your result will be as far as hundreds of points lost. The issue will be what your result will be compared with the other person or people with this issue.

If any action will propel you into the stratisphere, then the question is which is least likely to do so or which allows you to exit earlier at the lowest level.

If 3NT, for example, will be assumed to show a safe X HCP, X-a being in hearts, then partner will (a.) devalue his shortness value in hearts and (b.) need roughly 32-X to pursue slam. If he doesn't have that, he passes 3NT.

If 3♠ will be assumed to show a safe Y HCP, then partner will assume that he needs 32-Y total points to pursue slam. His total point will be whatever he has in HCP that would be relevant to slam consideration in notrump PLUS whatever he has in distributional values. So, one question is whether the safe expectation as to X is more than the safe expectation of Y plus his distributional value.

Another question, though, is which option will allow the best escape. If 3♠ will yield a call like 4NT as RKCB, you are playing 5♠. If 3NT yields a 4NT bid, you might play 5♦. If 3NT yields a minor call (4♣ or 4♦) meant as forcing, you can pass and play there (or correct a doubled 4♣ to 4♦). So, a call that allows more chances to run to the best strain at the lowest level is better than a call that will also propel us into the stratosphere but one level higher or in an inferior strain.

What my call actually should show is completely irrelevant, as we are not remotely shooting for a plus. What my call should show is only relevant as a prediction of how partner will react and how much space that reaction and how many necessary calls it will take to get to a pass from partner.

I'd much rather show even a slammish hand despite having a 4-count with no stoppers than 0-8 with spade preference if on the first I end up in 4♦X but on the second route I end up in 5♠X. I mean, if I could actually bid 4♣ Gerber and expect partner to show four Aces with a 4♦ call, I might do that.

[whereagles]

I think that

dbl 4♦
4♠

is perfectly ok. Pard cannot have a pure 1-suiter, otherwise he could have bid a direct 4♠ over the pree, despite the risk of burying slam.