[jillybean]

---

[diana_eva]

I'd just pass...

[akwoo]

It's not always going to work, but I think 3N is the practical bid.

I want better heart spots - at least AQ986 if not AQT9x - to pass.

[the hog]

3NT, not pass.Why not pass? Because this hand resembles nothing like a pass. A pass looks like KQJxxx or similar here.

[aguahombre]

If the colors are correct, we need to take nine tricks..holding them to four.

My guess is that it will be easier to do this declaring 3NT with Opener on lead than defending 1H with pard on lead. Could be wrong.

[diana_eva]

Why do we need to take 9 tricks? I'm not very convinced pass is the correct answer. I'd do that at the table, but I'm interested to hear why 3NT is better. I pass not bec I think we win more than 3NT, but bec I think we prob fail about anything or have a very hard time making 3NT. I don't see a massive fit anywhere except in the case pd has a strong one suiter type of hand.

[gwnn]

pass.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Format matters - MP or IMP.

Playing IMP: Pass, we have a likely game, but likely game does not mean cold game,
so trying to get 300/500 - 800 vs 600 is certainly the percentage action.

If you would be red vs. green, I would go with 3NT.

Playing MP: ..., most likely go with 3NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Knowing, how light a direct double could be, helps as well.
Take the hand from the your other thread, an 11/12 count with 5332 shape, where a T/O
got suggested, certainly a sensible action, but if you do it, you have to adjust to a
certain degree in other situations, since the probability that you have a sure game (3NT)
holding a min opener vs. a T/O drops.

[billw55]

hmmm, interesting problem. It's not a great looking pass, but 3NT could be noplay: takeout doubles can be pretty light these days, and my long suit is worthless. I consider also 2NT; if partner raises that, we are probably making. But if he doesn't, I will wish I passed 1♥x.

[MrAce]

diana_eva, on 2013-October-31, 01:18, said:

Why do we need to take 9 tricks? I'm not very convinced pass is the correct answer. I'd do that at the table, but I'm interested to hear why 3NT is better. I pass not bec I think we win more than 3NT, but bec I think we prob fail about anything or have a very hard time making 3NT. I don't see a massive fit anywhere except in the case pd has a strong one suiter type of hand.

the hog, on 2013-October-31, 00:46, said:

3NT, not pass.Why not pass? Because this hand resembles nothing like a pass. A pass looks like KQJxxx or similar here.

Do not follow everything you learnt blindly. In most of your replies you do the same thing bro.

We all get it, you wanna bid, pass, dbl, preempt, open at 1 level just like they write in books.

Unfortunately in real life we do not always get the "textbook" hands where we have a textbook pass or dbl or preempt or whatever. We then try to use our logic. Don't get me wrong, i am not saying pass is correct or wrong on this hand. But if i had AQxxx heart and a side Q, i would probably not even think of passing. However on this hand, declarer will not enjoy the dummy very much, if at all. He can't keep on tackling your hearts. Declarer will be under dog. He will usually have 5 hearts and 8 cards other suits. With pd doubling 1♥ and looking at your hand, you are very likely to score 4-5-6 of those 8 side tricks, before your trumps are touched. And if declarer holds strong spots and/or side suit, there is a good chance 3NT would fail.

Otoh i have to admit, defenders will have to be very careful. If you tap him too much he will be making more tricks than he is supposed to and your trumps are not as good as in your example so defense can not attack his trumps either. You will have to basically strip him. It is a matter of willing to take this chance or try to make 3NT, when you know where all the hcps are and defense has no communication. They will be defending from one hand and almost everyone, including top players feel more comfortable declaring than defending. And they have a reason for that which i will skip since i am sure you know why.

Unless the state of match or session suggests otherwise, i would probably bid 3 NT as well. Just not for the same reasons you did though.

[ggwhiz]

3nt because lho is endplayed at trick 1, onside to partners tenaces and likely to be endplayed again if need be.

On defence partner is endplayed at trick 1 if they don't have a clear cut lead and any possible ruff/overuff endplays work against us.

So I make us most often plus a trick on offence and minus a trick on defence.

[jillybean]

---

This is from the club, not with my regular partner. More to post but have to go to w&*^ now.

[neilkaz]

jillybean, on 2013-October-31, 10:51, said:

---

This is from the club, not with my regular partner. More to post but have to go to w&*^ now.

LOL here...south has a fine 13 count opposite a t/o X and all he can bid is a non forcing 2nt?

EDIT: OK I guess this isn't a fine 13 count, as my my minor quacks don't have to fit so well, but 2NT seems like an underbid to me. Either shoot out 3nt or pass.

[mikeh]

I wish I had come to this thread before jb posted the hand, partly because it may seem as if I am using that 'wire' to come to my opinion and partly because, while I did decide on my action before seeing the hand, there's no doubt that seeing that the hand made the action look good has to be an influence when I am writing about it, despite my best intentions.

I would have passed.

Assuming that each of LHO and partner hold about 12 hcp, and that is surely conservative....I'd expect that they'd cumulatively average 25-26 hcp, declarer isn't getting to dummy, ever.

I have no side 4 card suit, which suggests that declarer will often be relatively flat, and so won't be able to elope with small trump.

I would not expect to keep declarer from winning any side tricks at all: I think that very unlikely given that he has at most 6 hcp in hearts, but if we can hold him to 1 side winner, he must eventually have to lead trumps from his hand, and now the very most he can get is 3 trump winners, and he is down 800.

If he has two side winners, then either the 9 or the 10 of hearts, which may be unlikely but is far from impossible, probably suffices to change this to 2 trump winners. For example, and here I am being influenced by the actual hand, give declarer the spade K, so as to give him a really solid, extra values 1♥, and he is still sometimes going to miss-guess the play for 800.

At imps, pass seems very clear. It seems to me unlikely that he will ever take more than 5 tricks, and that means that we expect 500-800. Assuming we make game, in 3N, we lose 3 imps if he makes 5 tricks and gain 5 when he makes 4. I like those odds.

One factor at which I look when considering this sort of low level commitment is whether my partner could be looking at a hand that was too good to overcall, such that we might have a slam.

Given my shape and my hcp, unless LHO psyched, the chances of partner having, say, a great 16 count with a long suit seem remote, to be generous. Therefore I don't worry about slam.

At mps, again, I like the odds of 800 against 600/630, so I'd go for someone's jugular and hope it isn't mine or partners.

Finally, at imps, especially if the opps are not extremely good players, there is something demoralizing about going for 800 at the one level, and that effect is much greater, imo, than any feeling they get of stealing 3 imps when they go for 500.

[ArtK78]

I would bid 3NT rather than pass for penalties.

The primary reason for doing so has not yet been mentioned. Partner may have a monster distributional hand, and I have three useful cards for him if he has such a hand - ♠A, ♥A and ♦Q. So I am going to let partner know that I have a game forcing hand with some heart values. If he has a normal takeout double, then we will play in 3NT, and I expect to be able to make it. If partner has a distributional monster, he will bid again, and we may have a slam.

Passing for penalties would be appropriate with better hearts and less values. For example, Qx KQJTxx, Jxx, xx. I expect to beat 1♥x, perhaps many tricks, and I don't have any values that would be useful in another contract (except perhaps in NT) and a game contract is not even certain. I also expect partner to lead a trump if he has one (and at least try to lead one if he doesn't).

[mycroft]

I can see 3NT. But if you do, partner has the one heart, and it isn't the 10; and the spade K has traded places with one of the minor aces.

This isn't a "fine 13 count" - it's a problem 13 count. And partner's got a 4144 9-count like I he usually does, right?

I agree with Marlowe: if at IMPs, where 500 is lose 3 at worst (and +8-to-12 at best, and we might get 800), I'm passing. Yes, partner's going to lead his stiff heart, and give them one more finesse than they may otherwise have entries for; but we may still get them 800 if we have game, and we will set it even opposite the above 4144 9-count. If white on red, I don't even think about it. Matchpoints, where 500 scores the same as 150 (or 120 for that matter, but now it's a good thing) - well, that's why matchpoints is hard.

[jeffford76]

A 12-count with 10x of hearts should be raising 2NT to 3NT.

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on 2013-October-31, 11:14, said:

I would bid 3NT rather than pass for penalties.

The primary reason for doing so has not yet been mentioned. Partner may have a monster distributional hand, and I have three useful cards for him if he has such a hand - ♠A, ♥A and ♦Q. So I am going to let partner know that I have a game forcing hand with some heart values. If he has a normal takeout double, then we will play in 3NT, and I expect to be able to make it. If partner has a distributional monster, he will bid again, and we may have a slam.

Read my post

Can you construct a hand on which partner would double first? Assuming LHO has an opening hand, of course. All bets are off if LHO, red, psyched in 1st seat, but that doesn't seem reasonable to me.

[billw55]

I don't think this is such a good 13 count. The ♥Q is probably nothing and the heart spots too, which leaves me with basically a flat 11. Against that, the minor suit quacks improve after the tox. Also agree that north cannot have any kind of "monster" or GOSH.

Perhaps north should accept; it is a close decision, but the club suit is strong.