[humilities]

Matchpoints

---

Any advice appreciated

[MrAce]

My advice is to return to your pd's first suit and not insist on NT regardless of how many stoppers you have. As the way you put it in poll (with ? mark)you are not even sure what is 4 NT. Pd may not have clear opinion about it either and imo at this point I have no reason to believe 4♠ is worse than 4 NT. When he is bidding 4 ♦, he should not be doing this with just 5-5. Lack of supporting your hearts and not willing to play NT at the same time is a hint that he has at least 6-5 (not in specific order.)

[kenberg]

I first misread the auction but now that I have that straight I agree with the 4♠. mostly on a "what else?" basis. As I see it, i have bid hearts and NT and partner has said he thinks that we should play it in spades or diamonds. I have no reson to think that he isn't correct. It's not that I know what he has exactly, I don't. But he knows that I have hearts and that I have club stoppers, and he suggests spades or diamonds. So spades or daimonds it is. Spades seems to be the natural choice.

And true, I am not so sure I would have bid 3♥, but it's close. I have no real quarrel with that. When they pre-empt, we do what we can.

[rmnka447]

4 ♠, you have shown your hand and partner has chosen to bid again. At this point all you can do is show your preference by going back to partner's first bid (and presumably longer suit). Trust that partner had a good reason for his bidding.

[whereagles]

I don't see any way out of this except bidding a natural 4NT (what else can it be if you're this short on bidding space?).

If you judge a 4NT mix-up too risky, I guess you're stuck with 4♠ and hope for the best.

[kenberg]

I certainly agree that 4NT would be to play, and I can just barely imagine that it might be the right contract. I doubt that the opponents would help you set up two club tricks after you bid NT twice, among other things lho may well not have a club to lead even if he is inclined to. But perhaps partner has the ♥Q and you can estalsih four heart tricks, get to them via the diamond ace. and cash another five tricks (we now need ten) somewhere. Could be. But it also could be that partner can find ten tricks in the suits that he has suggested.

I doubt anyone would be happy with the way the auction has developed, and I hope partner and I can be easy about the result, whatever it is. But 4♠ for me.

I look forward to hearing what is right, "right" meaning "works". I may be right and I may be wrong.....

[perko90]

4NT is for sure to play and definitely my choice. Clubs are locked up tight and partner's got some goodies for you. Trouble is, you can't be sure what. Chances are, if you're left in 4NT, it's only 2 out 3 that you hope for: fitting heart honors, solid spades or solid diamonds. With NT, you can make do with any 2 out of 3. If you instead choose 4♠, you really don't want ptr's spades to be mediocre. Also, considering the bare minimum nature of your overcall, you really want to discourage slam as much as possible. And 4NT is more discouraging and descriptive than 4♠. BTW, 4♥ really misrepresents your hand and wouldn't even get my slightest consideration.

[humilities]

Thanks for the input all. Responders hand was:

KQxxxx
xx
KJxxx
--

the questions arose:
- how strong/weak could responder be for his bidding?
- should he just leave 3NT in?

[kenberg]

Pre-empts make life tough. Trying to see tis through advancer's eyes, i think I would regard hearts as a reasonable strain. A club, maybe two clubs, can be ruffed in the hand with the short trump, preserving the long trump winners. There is no way for advacer to know that overcaller's clubs are as good as they are, or that his heart suit is as modest as it is. The hands have a combined count of 21 highs and there is no fit. No reason to think that this will go well. Sometimes pre-empts make it tough. You are going to need some good luck to come up positive here.

I suppose NT is best here. Maybe Qxx in diamonds, on side, that would be a good start. Not enough though.

[billw55]

Anything besides correcting to 4♠ seems utterly bizarre to me. Sure, 4NT sounds like it would be to play, but that doesn't make it the right bid. Partner has clearly expressed a distributional two suiter. I already showed interest in NT, have equal length in partner's suits and can correct on same level.

I file this one under "duh".

[MrAce]

whereagles, on 2014-April-29, 08:00, said:

I don't see any way out of this except bidding a natural 4NT (what else can it be if you're this short on bidding space?).

If you judge a 4NT mix-up too risky, I guess you're stuck with 4♠ and hope for the best.

I do not think the main reason for 4♠ bidders was 4 NT could be a mix-up. But it is a danger of course, the way OP asked its meaning showed he was not sure.. 4 NT is never a picnic walk with a lot of broken suits and misfit and a lot of aces to knock down.

[perko90]

Oh wow, that's a disappointing dummy at 4NT : ) 4♦ should never be bid. It's either slam-ish strength or offering a place to play (more likely if the 6-5 shape were the other way around). However, after the 3NT bid, responder has to know that 5♦ will never be a good place to land. The overcaller will only choose it if perhaps 3-1 shape in D's & S's, in which case, responder's already meager hand will shrink even more with that spade holding opposite a stiff, and the 4 level will be a better hope than the 5 level. It's hard to blame responder for not wanting to sit for 3NT. But if so, 4♥ is a better bid. Yes, the 2 baby H's is a little less than ptr will expect, but it suggests a 6th S (otherwise, why introduce the suit?), and is the only way to offer up a choice of the alternative contracts that should really be considered.

[neilkaz]

My preference would be that pd leave me in 3NT with his near rubbish. Now I have to guess between 4♠ and 4NT and will trust him and bid 4♠.

[whereagles]

MrAce, on 2014-April-30, 07:58, said:

I do not think the main reason for 4♠ bidders was 4 NT could be a mix-up. (...)

Agree, I don't think it's the main reason. It's just an extra reason.