[AL78]

MPs, red against green:

♠AJ
♥84
♦KJ83
♣AKJ98

RHO is dealer and opens 3♥. Your call?

[paulg]

I pass and hope that a positive score will be reasonable. Everything else is too unattractive, especially as I play non-leaping michaels.

[LBengtsson]

 paulg, on 2022-February-17, 16:00, said:

I pass and hope that a positive score will be reasonable. Everything else is too unattractive, especially as I play non-leaping michaels.

Yes. Agree If partner can not balance with 3♠ then I do not want to be in this auction. It might be a strong hand but when there is no sensible bid available then 'Pass' is always the sensible bid.

[mikeh]

 LBengtsson, on 2022-February-17, 21:43, said:

Yes. Agree If partner can not balance with 3♠ then I do not want to be in this auction. It might be a strong hand but when there is no sensible bid available then 'Pass' is always the sensible bid.

I’m naturally inclined to pick nits: a pass is a call, not a bid.

Hoping partner can balance 3S means you’re likely in for a long, long wait after which you’ll be on lead against 3H 98% of the time.

Should he balance with Q109xxx xx Axx Qx? Red v white?

Also, if partner balances, you really can’t do much other than raise to 4S…4H might be taken as a control (in at least one of my partnerships it’s defined as a strong raise, ambiguous on hearts but that doesn’t help). Picture partner with KQxxxx x Ax Qxxx. Can you reach 6C? You could if you overcalled 4C. I guess you could argue that 4C over 3S implies spades, but I defy you to say partner should play you for anything resembling this hand.

That doesn’t mean I disagree with passing. Fortunately it’s matchpoints where frequency of gain or loss is more important than size of gain or loss. I’d hate this horrible hand even more at imps.

Btw, this general hand pattern…especially if I had 6 clubs…is why I don’t play non leaping Michaels. Obviously NLM wins sometimes but, imo, not often enough. With a NLM we bid 3S and hope to survive and often do.

I’m passing, unless I’m feeling very lucky, and hope primarily that nobody can make anything, so a small plus will score okay. The slight chance of partner balancing is a useful extra chance.

[sfi]

I really want to double. As long as partner doesn't have exactly four spades we have positive equity. At matchpoints I probably will and be prepared to apologise. At IMPs I'm certainly grimacing and passing, although I admire anyone who tries 3NT and hits gold.

[sfi]

I just asked an international player, who finally decided on 3NT over 3H after much deliberation. But it's clear no call is without risk.

[paulg]

 sfi, on 2022-February-18, 01:26, said:

I just asked an international player, who finally decided on 3NT over 3H after much deliberation. But it's clear no call is without risk.

To be fair we've already had a good response from an international player.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

[AL78]

I was undisciplined and loathe to pass this hand, so took a risky double. It didn't work and I got my deserved bad score.

https://tinyurl.com/ydyt5was

[DavidKok]

I prefer 3NT to double and pass to 3NT.

[sfi]

 paulg, on 2022-February-18, 02:31, said:

To be fair we've already had a good response from an international player.

And now you have more. I’m not quite sure what your point is.

[sfi]

 AL78, on 2022-February-18, 04:47, said:

I was undisciplined and loathe to pass this hand, so took a risky double. It didn't work and I got my deserved bad score.

https://tinyurl.com/ydyt5was

I think your partner should strongly consider 3NT, but this is the sort of layout where double loses out.

[AL78]

 sfi, on 2022-February-18, 06:16, said:

I think your partner should strongly consider 3NT, but this is the sort of layout where double loses out.

Yes, partner has three viable options, pass, 3NT and 4♠. Two of those work, she chose the third one.

[apollo1201]

 AL78, on 2022-February-18, 06:49, said:

Yes, partner has three viable options, pass, 3NT and 4♠. Two of those work, she chose the third one.

Partner can’t be sure that you have 4 spades, what to do with a strong 31(54) for instance? The risk of bad breaks and spade overrufs would have tempted me to try 3NT.
My professor told me when 3NT is a viable alternative after opps preempted, it should really be prioritized over an equally reasonable suit contract option. Give a spade more, lessen the H stop to Axxx and now 4S becomes more attractive.

[paulg]

 apollo1201, on 2022-February-19, 02:54, said:

Partner can't be sure that you have 4 spades, what to do with a strong 31(54) for instance?

I always think it is the sign of an improving player when they appreciate that 'rules' are flexible. Partner will not always have the perfect hand for a call, especially when they have extra strength, and this can guide you in finding a reasonable call.

This is a classic case.

[LBengtsson]

 paulg, on 2022-February-19, 04:58, said:

I always think it is the sign of an improving player when they appreciate that 'rules' are flexible. Partner will not always have the perfect hand for a call, especially when they have extra strength, and this can guide you in finding a reasonable call.

This is a classic case.

Yes, agree. Partner does not always have perfect hand. I add that a TOX of a ♥ bid/preempt may not include 4 card ♠ support, but I like a TOX of a ♠ bid/preempt to have 4 card ♥ suit most of the time. Why? Because partner has to respond at one level higher, and if opps have ♠ suit they will try to outbid us, so I want partner to know that I have 4 card support for ♥s. Playing in a Moyse fit a level higher than we should be is not easy.

[pescetom]

 AL78, on 2022-February-18, 06:49, said:

Yes, partner has three viable options, pass, 3NT and 4♠. Two of those work, she chose the third one.

If she thought her hearts were diamonds, I can understand.

[mikeh]

 sfi, on 2022-February-18, 01:26, said:

I just asked an international player, who finally decided on 3NT over 3H after much deliberation. But it's clear no call is without risk.

Were I in 4th chair, after 3H P P, 3N is very much a plausible call. However, I have no idea why any good player would consider a direct 3N.

The irony is that if 3N is a good contract, it’s very likely only a good contract when partner is declarer.