What should I have bid? Asked partner, as ops rattled of the first 6 winners
#1
Posted 2011-November-13, 12:25
North
♠QJT64
♥A97
♦J98
♣Q2
South
♠AK87
♥KQT7
♦75
♣A94
This went horribly wrong when partner bid 3NT over my 1NT and West rattled off ♦AKQT42 for a bottom for us as everyone was in Spades, making 10 or 11.
I suspect we would have survived on most days but how should I have replied to he question and what should I do? Part of the problem is that we are the only pair playing strong NT so its hard in these cases to compare our results and say we got the bidding wrong. I suspect the bidding at the other tables went something like 1H-1S-3S-4S with silent ops.
My answer was that she should transfer me in to Spades and then bid 3NT to show the point count, giving me a choice of games, but I'm not sure now I think about it a bit more. Is there another bid she could make?
Lets say partner does transfer to spades, should I bid a normal 2♠ or super-accept with a bid 3♠? I know I only have 16HCP and purists would say I guarantee a maximum, but surely ♠AK must count as an extra point?
As always, thanks in advance,
Simon
#2
Posted 2011-November-13, 12:30
#3
Posted 2011-November-13, 12:38
That said, there is no reason to place everything on yourself. Transferring to spades and then bidding 3NT expresses a desire to play 3NT. If you had a hand where 3NT seems wrong, you are generally unbalanced in some way and might try bidding your minor along the way.
For example, change North's hand to ♠QJ10xx ♥Axx ♦QJxx ♣x. With that hand, you might bid this way:
1NT-2♥
2♠-3♦
That invites partner's take on whether 3NT, 4♠, or even 5♦ makes the most sense, by focusing partner on what you actually have. For that matter, give partner ♠AKx ♥Kxx ♦AKx ♣xxxx. Opposite that hand, 6♠ probably makes (get a heart ruff in quickly).
In contrast, 1NT-2♥-2♠-3NT allows partner to pass, despite three-card support, which is what North intended. Sure -- doing that helps the opponents with the lead, but with five spades in your hand, dreaming of a spade lead seems silly.
-P.J. Painter.
#4
Posted 2011-November-13, 12:44
SimonFa, on 2011-November-13, 12:25, said:
My answer was that she should transfer me in to Spades and then bid 3NT to show the point count, giving me a choice of games, but I'm not sure now I think about it a bit more. Is there another bid she could make?
Lets say partner does transfer to spades, should I bid a normal 2♠ or super-accept with a bid 3♠? I know I only have 16HCP and purists would say I guarantee a maximum, but surely ♠AK must count as an extra point?
You are absolutely correct. Opposite a strong NT a 10 pt hand with a 5 card major should transfer to the major and then bid 3NT choice of games, unless their hand is very distributional (say a second 4+ suit or a 6th spade or something similar). This sequence should become automatic for you and your partner playing this system.
In this case, you have a very good hand for spades so you should superaccept (some people play that 3D shows a superaccept with xx of diamonds, then partner can bid 3H as a retransfer). Either way, your partnership should be in 4 spades on these cards.
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#5
Posted 2011-November-13, 12:45
3NT gets what it deserves.
#6
Posted 2011-November-13, 12:49
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#7
Posted 2011-November-13, 12:56
BunnyGo, on 2011-November-13, 12:49, said:
Agree. B/I forum is the ideal place to point out that OP's partner blasting 3NT was not a good idea and recommend using one's simple tools in simple auctions to arrive at better contracts over the long run.
#8
Posted 2011-November-13, 13:26
aguahombre, on 2011-November-13, 12:56, said:
Ok, point. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't taken too harshly.
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#9
Posted 2011-November-13, 14:09
- hrothgar
#10
Posted 2011-November-13, 21:55
"If you're driving [the Honda S2000] with the top up, the storm outside had better have a name."
Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.