[jillybean]

Hand1

Dealer: North Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ T642 ♥ A63 ♦ KT9 ♣ K97

West North East South

 -     3♣    Pass  ?


Hand2

Dealer: North Vul: NS Scoring: IMP

♠ Q ♥ K3 ♦ A8752 ♣ KJ965

West North East South

 -     1NT   Pass  ?

[rogerclee]

1) 4♣, since I am probably going to have to do this anyway. Make my hand slightly better and I would bid 3NT as a sort of two-way shot.

2) I assume I don't have any gadget to deal with this hand, or else this wouldn't be here, so I would just bid 3NT.

[655321]

1) 3NT
2) 3NT

[jdonn]

1. 3NT wtp?

2. Most people have a way to show this hand, but if you don't I would do whatever is forcing to bid 3♦, and probably 4♣ next. We should be able to stop in 4NT if I don't excite partner.

[pclayton]

1. Pass, 3N and 4C could all be correct in what they hope to accomplish. I need a very particular hand for 3N and I dont feel like throwing away 5-6 IMPs for a NV game hoping pard has it. 4C looks like it has more chances to win but I have fair defense against 4M anyway. I'll just pass.

2. What is our system to show the minors over 1N?

[Mbodell]

Hand 1 depends on partner's preempt style and opponents skill level. I think pass is right most of the time with my partners as we will likely have only 7 or 8 tricks against good defenders in NT and I'm not sure they'll find making 4M games against us often enough to jack it up.

With hand 2 my system bid is 2nt-3♣-3♦ showing game force and at least 54 in the minors either way which allows partner to show stoppers in majors or bid on in minors. With no systems 1NT-3NT should lead to a good contract more often then not as slam is unlikely and hopefully they will not have 5 off the top.

[whereagles]

3NT on both seems canonical. On the 2nd, to make. On the 1st, to bluff (pull to 4♣ if dbled).

[P_Marlowe]

#1 3NT, most likel clubs will run, which means
you have a high chance of making, I will
even sit, if they double.

#2 3NT, unless you can show 55 in the minors.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jillybean]

Hand1 I did bid 3nt

Hand2 I thought was worth a slam try, we had no special agreements over 1nt.

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     1NT   Pass  4NT
 Pass  5♥    Pass  6NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

[Winstonm]

Quote

Hand2 I thought was worth a slam try

Why?

[jillybean]

Winstonm, on Apr 13 2008, 08:25 AM, said:

Quote

Hand2 I thought was worth a slam try

Why?

My minors look like a great source of tricks

[gwnn]

jillybean2, on Apr 13 2008, 05:40 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 13 2008, 08:25 AM, said:

Quote

Hand2 I thought was worth a slam try

Why?

My minors look like a great source of tricks

not in nt...

[whereagles]

jillybean2, on Apr 13 2008, 03:40 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 13 2008, 08:25 AM, said:

Quote

Hand2 I thought was worth a slam try

Why?

My minors look like a great source of tricks

indeed. but you need agreements to show hands like these. else better 3NT and stay "fixed"

[jillybean]

gwnn, on Apr 13 2008, 08:57 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Apr 13 2008, 05:40 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 13 2008, 08:25 AM, said:

Quote

Hand2 I thought was worth a slam try

Why?

My minors look like a great source of tricks

not in nt...

why not? Partner has shown a balanced hand, we will have a fit in one or both minors and should be able to run the suit.
Im obviously out to lunch here but to me this looks too good to sign off in 3

[gwnn]

jillybean2, on Apr 13 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

gwnn, on Apr 13 2008, 08:57 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Apr 13 2008, 05:40 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 13 2008, 08:25 AM, said:

Quote

Hand2 I thought was worth a slam try

Why?

My minors look like a great source of tricks

not in nt...

why not? Partner has shown a balanced hand, we will have a fit in one or both minors and should be able to run the suit.
Im obviously out to lunch here but to me this looks too good to sign off in 3

in general, do not play 6NT with less than 33 hcp, unless you can count to 12 tricks. Yes, of course, there is slam potential with this hand, but it is almost certainly not in 6NT. we certainly have a fit for a minor (unless partner thinks it's a good idea to open 1NT with 5-4 in the majors) and slam in a minor could be very laydown, but if we have no gadgets to investigate that important possibility, 3NT is a much better idea than a quantitative raise to 4NT which apparently partner didn't even understand.

more to the point: look at the gorgeous hand partner had, he could hardly have had any more and slam is very hopeless.

[jillybean]

POints schmoints

What is hopeless about this hand? You only have 1 ♠ loser

[jdonn]

gwnn, on Apr 13 2008, 11:33 AM, said:

more to the point: look at the gorgeous hand partner had, he could hardly have had any more and slam is very hopeless.

Slam is far from very hopeless. In I would want to be in it if you promised me my opponents wouldn't duck the spade twice.

But on a B/I level, ok it's hopeless

jillybean2, on Apr 13 2008, 11:40 AM, said:

POints schmoints  

What is hopeless about this hand?  You only have 1 ♠ loser

His point was that there are 5 club tricks, 2 diamonds, 2 hearts, 2 spades, what is your twelfth trick?

My point above pertained to squeeze chances.

[Winstonm]

jillybean2, on Apr 13 2008, 11:40 AM, said:

POints schmoints 

What is hopeless about this hand?  You only have 1 ♠ loser

I find it difficult to discuss these things with learners - give this hand to 100 good players and tell them "no agreements" and 100 out of 100 would simply bid 3NT, wondering WTP?

Yet instead of trying to figure out why everyone else bids 3NT, the learner wants to defend alternative actions.

But Jilly is a good sport and deserves an answer, so I will try.

While your assessment of the potential of the hand at a suit contract is reasonable, i.e., there may be slam potential, but realize the hand also is flawed: (singleton spade Q would be better working somewhere else.)

With no agreements to find fitting minors, the idea of using trump ruffs as an additional source of tricks is ruled out - we only have NT or NT from which to chose.

A good rule of thumb is that if the perfect minimum for partner's actions would make slam a laydown, then a slam try is warranted. In this case, that would be a perfect minimum maximum - the perfect 16-count to take the 4NT push and bid slam and then have it be laydown.

Trouble here is that no construction of a 16-point hand would make slam laydown.

The other problem is that point-count is most accurate in NT bidding - 33 being the usualy required number to reach for slam to be a good proposition.

13+16 may on occasion produce a slam, but it will be short of points and therefore have to rely on tricks - either length tricks or ruffing tricks - and will have to avoid two immediate losers. Not an easy task.

[1eyedjack]

gwnn, on Apr 13 2008, 05:33 PM, said:

look at the gorgeous hand partner had, he could hardly have had any more and slam is very hopeless.

I disagree with this. Give opener the Diamond Queen instead of the Spade King-Jack and the slam is very attractive on two fewer points.

jillybean2, on Apr 13 2008, 05:40 PM, said:

POints schmoints 

What is hopeless about this hand?  You only have 1 ♠ loser

I think it hardly fair to say that your hand has improved to the point of a slam try on the grounds of the one Spade loser, when you have committed to playing in NT and the only reason you can justify an evaluation of one Spade loser is the expectation of a ruff.

That said, I agree that the hand is worth a slam try. But as with the others, it is only worth a slam try if you can tell partner something about your hand that enables him to evaluate his own hand accurately. And then, you probably want to settle in a suit.

[gwnn]

1eyedjack, on Apr 13 2008, 07:36 PM, said:

I disagree with this. Give opener the Diamond Queen instead of the Spade King-Jack and the slam is very attractive on two fewer points.

except opps will take the first 5 tricks in spades.