[cherdano]

Scoring: IMP

1♥-1N
2♦-2♥
2♠-?

---

(Uncontested auction, starting with partner in second seat.)

Ok, this time the setting is a little different. This is the last set of a 64 board team match, and you were down 60+ before this set. You are playing precision, your opponents at the other table standard, so you can be pretty sure they are playing 2♥ over there. This is board 7 of the set, you had 2 excellent results so far, otherwise nothing special; maybe one plus position, and one slam bid by opps that your team mates are likely but not certain to push.

Do you try for the big swing with 3N?

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on Apr 2 2007, 12:11 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♥-1N
2♦-2♥
2♠-?

---

(Uncontested auction, starting with partner in second seat.)

Ok, this time the setting is a little different. This is the last set of a 64 board team match, and you were down 60+ before this set. You are playing precision, your opponents at the other table standard, so you can be pretty sure they are playing 2♥ over there. This is board 7 of the set, you had 2 excellent results so far, otherwise nothing special; maybe one plus position, and one slam bid by opps that your team mates are likely but not certain to push.

Do you try for the big swing with 3N?

Where are your tricks in 3N? Surely you don't expect the clubs to run?

It would help to know what partner's 2♠ rebid shows. Partner bid a non-forcing 2♦ and now is making some type of game try after I make a non-forcing preference to Hearts.

Without prior discussion, 2♠ would be a natural bid, typically showing a strong 3=5=4=1 / 4=5=4=0 shape. I prefer that 2♠ is an artifical advance, settigng hearts as trump and asking partner to describe his hand.

[cherdano]

2♠ by partner is bidding out his shape, showing a maximum 1♥ opener (up to 15 hcp). I apologize for boxing you into describer-thinking.
You could hope for 5 heart tricks and two in the pointed suits...

[jdonn]

Agree 2NT, if my king was anywhere else I'd try 3NT. Who knows maybe hearts don't break and I win a medium swing this way.

[whereagles]

I'll try 3NT, yes. Pard should be like 16-17 hcp and I got fillers for his red suits + quick tricks on the side.

There might be communication problems, but I'll think about that at trick 1

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Apr 1 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

I'll try 3NT, yes. Pard should be like 16-17 hcp and I got fillers for his red suits + quick tricks on the side.

There might be communication problems, but I'll think about that at trick 1

You missed the part where you are playing precision, pard is <16. Still 3NT?

[whereagles]

doh! I gotta stop eating and posting at the same time.

2NT, of course Actually... 3♥. I can't belive pard would bid like this without 3-level safety, so he should be 3640.

[Codo]

I don`t know if this is a knock out, but if it is , then I urgently need some more swings. 3 NT will be swingy....

There is no other excusion for this bid because it won`t win in the long run, but there is no more "long run" in this match.

[Fluffy]

pass and play this contract.

[pclayton]

Ugh; does pard promise 4♠ here Arend? Couldn't pard reverse with a 4-5 and a 15 count?

Obviously I'm concerned about a 3=5=4=1, because thats what he can have in a 2/1 context.

So I'm less concerned with winning the board than I am finding a playable spot.

2N makes little sense to me; it seems if pard is the magical 3=5=4=1, I might as well shoot out 3N. How often will we take exactly 8 tricks?

[Apollo81]

If I were sure partner had 4♠ then I'd pass. I'd probably bid 2NT.

[skjaeran]

I'll bid 3♣. This must be to play. I've got 4-5 tricks in this contract vs partner's singleton. It's probably the best partscore we can play in.

[bid_em_up]

cherdano, on Apr 1 2007, 04:11 PM, said:

Do you try for the big swing with 3N?

No.

[jdonn]

skaeran, on Apr 2 2007, 03:04 PM, said:

I'll bid 3♣. This must be to play. I've got 4-5 tricks in this contract vs partner's singleton. It's probably the best partscore we can play in.

This makes no sense to me at all. We already DIDN'T bid 3♣ to play last round, so how could it be to play now that the only other thing we have learned is that partner has short clubs? I would take 3♣ as sort of a bluhmer, showing a great fitting maximum with nothing wasted. Say Kxx Kx Axx xxxxx.

[skjaeran]

jdonn, on Apr 2 2007, 10:18 PM, said:

skaeran, on Apr 2 2007, 03:04 PM, said:

I'll bid 3♣. This must be to play. I've got 4-5 tricks in this contract vs partner's singleton. It's probably the best partscore we can play in.

This makes no sense to me at all. We already DIDN'T bid 3♣ to play last round, so how could it be to play now that the only other thing we have learned is that partner has short clubs? I would take 3♣ as sort of a bluhmer, showing a great fitting maximum with nothing wasted. Say Kxx Kx Axx xxxxx.

I'd have bid 3♣ in the previous round.
I assumed that the reason 2♥ was bid was that 3♣ would have been invitational (it wouldn't be in my methods).
Thus we couldn't bid 3♣ to play until now.

Kxx Kx Axx xxxxx could bid 3♠ now, and let partner chose game. We could play 3NT, 4♥ or even 4♠ (if partner happened to be 4540).

If 3♣ would be to play over 2♦, that's what should have been bid.

[jdonn]

I think you are making a false assumption. If you would have bid 3♣ last round that's fine, but 2♥ is perfectly reasonable. Just because 2♥ was chosen doesn't mean they have the nonstandard agreement that 3♣ last round would have been invitational. So unless we are told that's the agreement I would assume 3♣ last round would have been to play. And surely you agree that IF 3♣ last round was to play, it makes no sense for 3♣ this round to be to play?

I believe 3♠ this round should show 2 honors, all the more due to what I believe 3♣ is.

[skjaeran]

If 3♣ would be to play last round, I agree that it can't be to play now - no problem with that.