[VMars]

I haven't started a poll in a while.

You are playing teams (IMPs), and you are red vs white.

What do you bid, and why?

---

[fromageGB]

My partners would bid spades with 5+ and a game hand, so there is no good fit. While 3NT may work with a very lucky hand, it is not likely. 3♦ would show longer diamonds. This leaves a choice of 3♠ on a presumed 4-3 fit with likely 4+ spades on top of partner's 4, or pass. As partner must have good values for his bid, I think the gain from passing is preferred.

[PhilKing]

I like 3NT a lot here.

[PhilKing]

I like 3NT a lot here. Collecting 300 instead of 600 is quite a big deal.

Even when partner as a small singleton, the opening lead will often block the suit, and we give partner a chance to come again when he is 4450.

Pass at all other vulnerabilities.

[billw55]

Good problem. I like them this way: ordinary hand, ordinary auction, and yet here we are with a difficult decision.

[fromageGB]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-22, 07:42, said:

... Even when partner as a small singleton, the opening lead will often block the suit...

Assuming the 3♣ is a six card suit, which it commonly is for a WJO, leader would need 2 honours in his doubleton club for the suit to be blocked. Is this likely? 22% or whatever is not what I would call "often". Or am I mistaken?

Edit - I am mistaken as to which side is on lead! But perhaps with a gap in his honours, south will lead low.

This post has been edited by fromageGB: 2013-April-22, 08:46

[PhilKing]

fromageGB, on 2013-April-22, 08:44, said:

Assuming the 3♣ is a six card suit, which it commonly is for a WJO, leader would need 2 honours in his doubleton club for the suit to be blocked. Is this likely? 22% or whatever is not what I would call "often". Or am I mistaken?

Edit - I am mistaken as to which side is on lead! But perhaps with a gap in his honours, south will lead low.

I'm not saying the suit is blocked.

If the leader leads high from KQJxxx or AKJxxx, then the suit becomes blocked. From the latter holding it is true he may lead low, but he may also not lead the suit at all. Likewise AQJxxx.

[Codo]

Gambling 3 NT will work quite often, partner may hold any singleton honour too. But I still pass. If partner holds Kxxx,Kxxx,Kxxx,J or another typical take out double with a singleton club honour, I will be quite happy with my choice.

[lalldonn]

Pass for sure. They might even finesse into partner's singleton club king or queen. You might get more than your game even at this vul (people underestimate the frequency with which this happens), or you might not be making game. Take the money in these situations.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

If it makes, it wont be the first 3Xx=, it wont be the last.
If we have game, we will beat it -2 or -3, and it is not a given,
that we have game our way.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[1eyedjack]

I voted pass. I prefer +600 to +300, but I more prefer +300 to - anything.

Assuming +300 (with a variance of zero) is a racing certainty in defence and you are either making 8 or 9 tricks in 3N, then 3N your way has to be somewhere about 56% for it to be a long term gain. If we add the assumption that we will be doubled if we fail, then the breakeven odds go up to 61%. If we accept that there is a real prospect of failing by more than one trick if doubled, then the breakeven odds rise more. All these assumptions oversimplify reality, of course, but it all helps for a gut feel.

Furthermore, the odds of our making +600 as declarer are not entirely independent of our expected gain when defending. If we are destined for just +100 in defence then the likelihood of 3N making our way drops. Meanwhile it is not out of the question that we might be collecting 500 in defence, whereupon the alternative of +600 as declarer is so modest an increment as to drive up the break-even odds for bidding quite substantially (to about 80% using the otherwise same assumptions as above).

Hugely different conclusion at MP, of course, where +500 may be close to zero.

It may also make a difference if you are 5 IMPs down going into the last board of a K-O event, and you need the +56% (or +80% or whatever) event for survival. Not that you can ever really predict what happened at the other table(s) that reliably.

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-22, 07:42, said:

I like 3NT a lot here. Collecting 300 instead of 600 is quite a big deal.

Even when partner as a small singleton, the opening lead will often block the suit, and we give partner a chance to come again when he is 4450.

Making 3NT requires more than just a club stop. We have to make nine tricks too. This hand isn't exactly overflowing with playing strength.

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2013-April-24, 07:17, said:

Making 3NT requires more than just a club stop. We have to make nine tricks too. This hand isn't exactly overflowing with playing strength.

Looking at this hand again, it seems implausible that I answered 3NT.

[fromageGB]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-24, 07:45, said:

Looking at this hand again, it seems implausible that I answered 3NT.

Anyone can have an optimistic blur of the eyes. Unfortunately, pulling out a 3NT card in place of a pass card is unlikely to be "mechanical error", so I doubt if the director will be happy for you to change your mind. Just hope it works out!

[awm]

I like 3NT here. If I knew that partner had a normal minimum negative double, passing seems better. But there are a number of other constructions possible; for example partner could have a 6-4 majors hand planning to correct 3NT to 4M (which is almost surely making) and we may not get much from 3♣X in this case. Partner could have a good 3451-ish hand where we can make 6♦ (and bid it when partner bids on over 3NT) but may not even get 3♣X for the value of a game. Or partner could just have a bit extra like ♠KJxx ♥KQxx ♦xxx ♣Ax where 3NT is cold and 3♣X goes down three.

It just seems like bidding (rather than passing) retains a lot of flexibility in case partner has a slightly unusual hand.