[TMorris]

All red at matchpoints. The bidding with opponents quiet has gone

1♦ 1♠
2♣ 2♥(FSF but not to game)
3♣ 3NT

1♦ promised at least 4 cards

You have

10x
Q
AJ10xx
AKJxx

[billw55]

Not me. No indication of a fit or of extra strength with partner. I showed my 55, he wants to play 3NT, who am I to argue?

[nige1]

 TMorris, on 2015-August-05, 11:16, said:

All red at matchpoints. You have ♠ 10 x ♥ Q ♦ A J 10 x x ♣ A K J x x
The bidding with opponents quiet has gone
1♦ 1♠
2♣ 2♥(FSF but not to game)
3♣ 3NT
1♦ promised at least 4 cards

I rank

• Pass = NAT. Partner might be expressing doubt but ♥Q should help.
• 4♠ = NAT. OK, since partner should have long ♠s.

[Jinksy]

No.

On second thoughts, with the benefit of further reflection,

No.

[kenrexford]

 Jinksy, on 2015-August-05, 12:19, said:

No.

On second thoughts, with the benefit of further reflection,

No.

Your position is short-sighted. You obviously did not consider Hell No.

[rmnka447]

No!!

You told your story and partner decided to bid 3 NT. Bidding on is a breach of partnership trust. If 3 NT goes down, the onus is on partner. If you bid on, the onus for whatever happens is on you.

[aguahombre]

 Jinksy, on 2015-August-05, 12:19, said:

No.

On second thoughts, with the benefit of further reflection,

No.

That's the line of the eye chart I can read.

[TMorris]

Thanks - that was my view as well. This was a hesitation situation, the 3NT was bid very very slowly and the auction then went

5♣ 6♣

making for a zero

the 3NT bidder had

AJxx
A10x
Qx
Qxxx

and K of diamonds was onside.

[kenrexford]

No Brainerd adjustment.

[BillPatch]

 kenrexford, on 2015-August-05, 18:03, said:

No Brainerd adjustment.

Director Branerd may not adjust, but the committee will surely overrule.

[aguahombre]

No brainerd is an oxymoron.

[gszes]

This is way too close for me to call- If I held the heart x and *AQJTx dia I am absolutely bidding --depending on partnership methods-- 4c/4n/5c). The problem here is opener had to way underbid with 3c since responder could have been a min invite with or w/o hearts stopped. Once responder bid 3n over our non forcing 3c we know opener has close to opening values + and it is certainly reasonable to give an extra nudge with a hand that is close to a full ace stronger than I needed for the previous bidding.

This worry wart attitude about losing in the post mortem is horribly anti partnership when it limits thinking in our fine game. Once in a while bidding beyond 3n will be wrong but there are many ways to win* by bidding on and only a few small ways to lose. This being MP makes the concept of bidding beyond 3n scarier. The fact that I would downgrade the heart Q enough and pass 3n this particular hand does not mean I think bidding beyond 3n is horrific in any way shape or form.

Now when it comes to U/I we have a different story -- The long hesitation creates obvious problems for opener since passing at MP is so obvious the hesitation strongly suggests 3n is not the bid of choice but something else is. That mere fact (along with the singleton heart and above mentioned extra values strongly suggests that 3n is not really the best spot and bidding something more would be beneficial to the partnership. Opener did not treat the U/I aspect of the problem with proper respect and took a bid that seems to take advantage of the U/I BUT IT IS CLOSE.

Do not ask me what i think of the 3n bid:) with extra time to think about it no less

[nullve]

 gszes, on 2015-August-06, 13:30, said:

a hand that is close to a full ace stronger than I needed for the previous bidding.

That's an understatement.

[aguahombre]

gszes' analysis is valid about the nature of the 4sf (not g.f.) methods used by this partnership. If opener had chosen a quant 4nt instead of pass, I would accept it; who knows what would happen after that. The actual choice of 5♣ is beyond the pale.