[ArcLight]

"When three No Trump is one of the alternatives, choose it." A quote by Mr. Bobby Hamman.

Does this apply more to MPs than IMPs?
What is the background to this quote, I wonder if its being taken out of context?
I wonder if it is really a hardcore "Law"?
It seems that frequently if one can make 4 Spades or 3NT, 4 Spades is better because it scores more in MP.
With extra strength, say 30 HCP then you may very well get an extra trick in 3NT.

One advantage of bidding 3NT is the opening bid may be away form an Ace (underleading the Ace) and this allows Declarers King to make, while in a suit contract that would rarely happen.

What are your thoughts?

[Chamaco]

Quote

Does this apply more to MPs than IMPs?

My impression is that it applies more to IMPS than in MP.

Many times, both 3NT and 4M (more rarely, 5m) will be makeable: i thses cases, often being in 3NT will be a bad MP score whilst irrelevant at IMPS.

However, some times, there will be 9 tricks only in any denomination: this will be a less frequent case, but very heavy in terms of magnitude of swing at IMPS;
instead, the relatively low frequency of this case will make it less appealing at MP, unles there are quite clear signs to think that the hand is NT oriented.

At MP we are more concerned of the frequency of gains/losses, at IMPS of the magnitude.

Quote

What is the background to this quote, I wonder if its being taken out of context?

I think that, very often, these ambiguity arises at the 3 level, after opps preemption:
I would think that the background in those cases refers to the fact that if we have a stopper for 3NT, pard often won't have it, and if we look for a suit contract despite having the stopper(s), we shall never find 3NT when it's right.

Basically the idea is: bid 3NT if you got the stopper, you still dn't know whether we have a major suit fit, but we do know we have values for game AND a stopper.
If we do not show a stopper and try for a suit contract, pard (who ignores we have a stopper) will bypass 3NT when it's the best spot.

Quote

With extra strength, say 30 HCP then you may very well get an extra trick in 3NT.

The real risk, in those cases, is risking to miss slam in a suit contract by preferring 3NT.

[joker_gib]

IMHO, this rule is not intended for the hands where you have to choose between 4M or 3NT !

This rules applies more to hands where you are preempted and no good way to go so you simply bid 3NT because you have a stopper and that 3NT is a likely contract.

Alain

[barmar]

ArcLight, on Nov 15 2005, 09:32 AM, said:

I wonder if it is really a hardcore "Law"?

Few of the rules of thumb called "Laws" in bridge are truly laws. Hamman's Law, the Law of Total Tricks.

In fact, one of the most reliable ones is just called the Rule of 11 rather than the Law of 11.

[FrancesHinden]

I wouldn't take it too seriously.
A close examination of Mr Hamman's bidding will show you that he doesn't always follow it.

It's often used by other people to justify totally absurd 3NT bids.

I also think in particular, it's a shortened form of saying "when you've been pre-empted and you're guessing what the final contract should be, then if 3NT is a possibility it's often the correct call, particularly if alternatives take us past 3NT"

So if RHO opens 3C and you debating whether to double or bid 3NT, it's often right to double and then bid 3NT to express some doubt. If RHO opens 3S it's more often right to bid 3NT now, because if you double partner will have to bid at the 4-level and it's too late.

[Kalvan14]

I would expect that Hamman mostly refers to marginal contracts, where playing one trick less is often vital.
Additionally, 3NT often has space for deceptive bidding and playing. Without trumps, a better card player has a lot of scope to shine.
It's not a law, obviously. It might be considered a default when dealing with a particular class of bridge hands.