[eagles123]

Matchpoints as always, 1NT is 12-14

---

what is the best bid/action here? Have had some conflicting advice!

Thanks,

Eagles

[GreenMan]

Transfer then 3NT, though a direct 3NT is close. I'm not bright enough to tell whether 3NT or 4♠ is better at matchpoints on this deal, so I'm soliciting partner's opinion.

You're probably getting conflicting advice because those two options are close to equal in quality IMHO, and some will have strong opinions one way or the other. (Insisting on 4♠ is too unilateral.) A spade contract will be best if the opponents have a suit they can run, but OTOH that spade suit will likely produce the same number of tricks in either contract, so 3NT may well score better; and bidding it directly will give the opps less information for their opening lead and subsequent defense. Pick your poison.

[cargobeep]

3NT just seems like a loser to me. Can we really have all of the 3 suits stopped? I'd just go 2♥ -> 2♠ -> 4♠

[Cyberyeti]

Don't bid 3N, it's really embarrassing when partner has ♠xxxxx.

Having transferred, I have no strong views whether you should bid 3N or 4♠ next, I'd probably bid 3N.

[mgoetze]

The idea is that with this type of hand (very strong longest suit) you will often take the same tricks in 3NT as you would in 4M, therefore at matchpoints you are better off in NT.

The trouble is that when you barely have the HCP for game, there is a significant chance with this type of hand that your opponents may have 5 top tricks versus 3NT.

Therefore, the given reasoning is much more valid when you are comfortably in range for game. That is to say, opposite a 15-17 1NT opener I would happily bid 3NT with your hand. But opposite 12-14 I will play it straight and transfer, then bid 3NT.

[SimonFa]

 cargobeep, on 2013-August-16, 16:18, said:

3NT just seems like a loser to me. Can we really have all of the 3 suits stopped? I'd just go 2♥ -> 2♠ -> 4♠

If you know you're going to play 4S without consulting partner why give opps a chance to get in on the bidding? Why not jus go straight there?

[mcphee]

There is absolutely no reason for the responding hand to do anything other than show 5S and offer a choice of games. It is just not the responders decision to do anything else. Keep in mind you are in a partnership game. The idea of the bidding is to show and tell, the transfer and 3N does just that. It is not your fault if 3NT should go down. It will be your fault if 4S goes down.

[billw55]

 cargobeep, on 2013-August-16, 16:18, said:

3NT just seems like a loser to me. Can we really have all of the 3 suits stopped? I'd just go 2♥ -> 2♠ -> 4♠

Sure we can have all suits stopped. Partner has 12-14 worth of non-spades, and we have helpers in all suits (♦T8 is not trivial).

[eagles123]

thanks folks, very helpful

[EricK]

The gamble of bidding 3N rather than looking for 4M works much better if responder has at least 6 solid in the suit. With only 5 it is less likely that partner has enough quick tricks to win the race. Also, without the J, there is a chance that the ♠ don't even run! So in these circumstances I much prefer to bid my hand (transfer then 3NT) and give partner the choice.

[wank]

this type of hand is normally better in 3nt (though by all means ask parter's opiion by transferring first)

instead of fearing the opps running a suit, with so many fast losers for partner to cover, you would do better to worry about them taking a fast 4 in aces and kings versus 4s.

[campboy]

There is a middle ground here between transfer-then-3NT and direct 3NT: bid Stayman and play in 3NT unless you have a 9-card fit.

[chasetb]

 campboy, on 2013-August-20, 03:27, said:

There is a middle ground here between transfer-then-3NT and direct 3NT: bid Stayman and play in 3NT unless you have a 9-card fit.

2 weeks ago at the local club, I had almost the exact same hand as OP. We were playing 15-17 NT, so just take away both Jacks and give the ♣10 and ♥3. I directly bid 3NT, only to find out to my horror that 3NT only had 8 tricks and 4♠ had 11, partner in fact had ♠Jxxx.

If you want to play with the room, transfer and then bid 3NT; if you want to make sure you don't completely blow the hand, use Stayman and then bid 3NT if partner doesn't show 4+ card support. Personally, my experience says that the suit is so good, we only want to play 4♠ if it is a 9 or 10-card fit. Do not forget, 9 tricks is one less than 10.

[RSClyde]

Fortunately such questions are easy to answer by compiling a data set. Using Dealmaster, I input that hand and found that opposite a random strong no trump with 3+ spades, 3nt was right (equal or more tricks) 60% of deals and 4S on 40%. This agrees with past simulations that have shown that when your HCP approach 29+ balanced hands tend to play just as well in no trump.

[chasetb]

 RSClyde, on 2013-August-20, 10:18, said:

Fortunately such questions are easy to answer by compiling a data set. Using Dealmaster, I input that hand and found that opposite a random strong no trump with 3+ spades, 3nt was right (equal or more tricks) 60% of deals and 4S on 40%. This agrees with past simulations that have shown that when your HCP approach 29+ balanced hands tend to play just as well in no trump.

1.) OP said they were playing a 12-14 1NT, so the HCP count is 25-27 HCP, not 29+ .

2.) In MY post, I said we were using a 15-17 1NT, but I only had 11 HCP, and partner had 16 to bring us to 27 combined HCP. And like I said, 3NT was -1 while 4♠ was +1 on a 5-4 fit.

3.) I love me some simulations, but please re-do it, and list the exact details that you used, since there are a few others on here who will run them as well.

[RSClyde]

 chasetb, on 2013-August-20, 10:49, said:

1.) OP said they were playing a 12-14 1NT, so the HCP count is 25-27 HCP, not 29+ .

2.) In MY post, I said we were using a 15-17 1NT, but I only had 11 HCP, and partner had 16 to bring us to 27 combined HCP. And like I said, 3NT was -1 while 4♠ was +1 on a 5-4 fit.

3.) I love me some simulations, but please re-do it, and list the exact details that you used, since there are a few others on here who will run them as well.

Oh ok I totally missed that, that certainly changes things.