[Sambolino]

Scoring: IMP

---

pard was the dealer
1♥* - (1♠) - 3NT** - (p)
4♥ - (4♠) - ?

* 11-15 5+♥ unbal
** transfer for 4♥, better than 4♥ directly, shows some defensive potential

pass is not forcing
4m and 4♠ over 3NT would be exclusion

[TylerE]

While I'm not crazy about the initial bid, it seems to me I have exactly what I promised, and nothing more. Pass. If partner can whack it, great, if not, I'll take what I get in 4♠. Don't want to be in 5♥X and find out it's LHO with the ♠ shortness.

[Halo]

Pass.

If partner doesn't have the ace of diamonds I have no trump trick, so a strong suggestion that we defend doesn't seem right.

Partner's better off than if I had just bid 4♥, and it's too late to show a singleton diamond (if that was ever possible).

[Apollo81]

My interpretation of the 3NT bid is that it does not create a forcing auction. Having said that, this is an obvious pass now since we have already shown defensive potential.

The 3NT bid is an overbid on playing strength. Playing standard methods I would have bid 2♠ on the previous round. You could arguably make a mixed raise on this hand too if playing a method that allows that.

[ArtK78]

The initial bid was fine if it is intended as a substitute for a preemptive 4♥ call but with more defensive strength. Having announced some defense as well as a sort of "what the hey" 4♥ bid, partner should be in a reasonable position to act intelligently over 4♠.

I don't have a sure trump trick, but 10xxx may be more than a little annoying for declarer in 4♠. My Ace and King rate to take tricks, and partner did open the bidding. So there is a case to be made for doubling.

On the other hand, I do not want to dissuade partner from bidding 5♥. He is likely to be short in spades (duh!) and I have control of the other suits. When I pass, he will know that I don't have trump tricks against 4♠ so he may be able to bid on when it is right.

This is not a forcing pass situation, as I did not make a power game bid. So partner might pass it out when we should be doubling. That is unfortunate, but I don't think I can commit our side to doubling 4♠. If I double, it is highly unlikely that partner will pull when it is right to pull.

[ASkolnick]

OK. I am showing a good 1/4. I have 1.5 tricks opposite my partner (really I should only have 1). I think 1H will cash and 4 trumps. I can get a tap going immediately and hold 4 trumps. Unless he has a huge two suiter with diamonds. I don't see his tricks anywhere. I keep punching hearts until the cows come home.

Will it make some of the time? Sure. But I think you will get 300 much more than not and it may be a double game swing with your hand if you do not drop the hammer.

[pclayton]

ASkolnick, on Jun 17 2008, 06:24 AM, said:

OK. I am showing a good 1/4. I have 1.5 tricks opposite my partner (really I should only have 1). I think 1H will cash and 4 trumps. I can get a tap going immediately and hold 4 trumps. Unless he has a huge two suiter with diamonds. I don't see his tricks anywhere. I keep punching hearts until the cows come home.

Will it make some of the time? Sure. But I think you will get 300 much more than not and it may be a double game swing with your hand if you do not drop the hammer.

When my opponents bid like this, they have a side suit. I hope that answers the 'source of tricks' question.

Once again, we have described our hand reasonably well on the round before. Is partner really that much of a moron where we have to try to bid his hand?

Pass.

[andy_h]

Pass, I've said my story.

[cherdano]

Pass.
As an aside, I think your exclusion agreement is very very bad.

[gwnn]

Apollo81, on Jun 17 2008, 04:12 PM, said:

My interpretation of the 3NT bid is that it does not create a forcing auction. Having said that, this is an obvious pass now since we have already shown defensive potential.

The 3NT bid is an overbid on playing strength. Playing standard methods I would have bid 2♠ on the previous round. You could arguably make a mixed raise on this hand too if playing a method that allows that.

100% agree with this

[cherdano]

I disagree with the claim that 3N is an overbid, opposite a partner who promised an unbalanced hand.

[Sambolino]

actually what i posted here was kind of a phantom problem.

first thing, i should've bid 3d - minisplinter (6-9). but should i still pass over (p)-4h-(4s) ? and can pard pull over the x?

after 3nt partner actually bid 4d (he forgot sys), and it was obvious to me at the moment that it was not exclusion but either values either simply 2nd suit (whatever it was, the bid was nonsense). after 4d i'm sure dbl is clearcut.

the deal is actually interesting, as 4s along with 6h (except on HQ lead) make, and 2/3 of the field played 4s:

---

[kenrexford]

Great hand.

Partner held a wild 6430 hand and opened 1♥, an unusual conventional approach promising an unbalanced hand.

Responder then way overbids his hand per agreement for no apparent reason.

Opener forgets the system and makes some random call that has shown an impossible holding of a void-based slam interest, a bizarre agreement, intending to show diamonds.

Now, an opponent who strangely bid one-only-spades wakes up and bids 4♠ out of the blue.

AFter all of this, there is a problem about what to do now.

I like it. I'd bid 5♣ Super Gerber. I think that's standard for this sequence.

[rogerclee]

kenrexford, on Jun 17 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

Great hand.

Partner held a wild 6430 hand and opened 1♥, an unusual conventional approach promising an unbalanced hand.

Responder then way overbids his hand per agreement for no apparent reason.

Opener forgets the system and makes some random call that has shown an impossible holding of a void-based slam interest, a bizarre agreement, intending to show diamonds.

Now, an opponent who strangely bid one-only-spades wakes up and bids 4♠ out of the blue.

AFter all of this, there is a problem about what to do now.

I like it. I'd bid 5♣ Super Gerber. I think that's standard for this sequence.

I have no problem with the way East bid his hand (he was not told 4♦ was exclusion).

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Jun 17 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 17 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

Great hand.

Partner held a wild 6430 hand and opened 1♥, an unusual conventional approach promising an unbalanced hand. 

Responder then way overbids his hand per agreement for no apparent reason.

Opener forgets the system and makes some random call that has shown an impossible holding of a void-based slam interest, a bizarre agreement, intending to show diamonds.

Now, an opponent who strangely bid one-only-spades wakes up and bids 4♠ out of the blue.

AFter all of this, there is a problem about what to do now.

I like it.  I'd bid 5♣ Super Gerber.  I think that's standard for this sequence.

I have no problem with the way East bid his hand (he was not told 4♦ was exclusion).

I'm not saying that 1♠...4♠ does not make sense. What I am definitely saying is that 1♠...4♠ in this muddled sequence adds a layer of complexity to the huge WTF about the auction. LOL