[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Jan 2 2010, 11:59 AM, said:

Now you know that partner is doubtful about bidding 3NT: this alters the odds on the guess, and moves it towards pulling rather than passing, thus suggesting a bid over a pass.

How does it do that?

[bluejak]

If I am doubtful about 3NT then I might pull x% of the time. If I know partner is doubtful as well, and I either use that subconsciously or consciously I might pull y% of the time. Unless x=100, I would always expect y>x.

[bluejak]

The TD believed that a slow 3NT suggested 4♣. While the ♦Q lead is interesting - one off if you cover, an overtrick if you duck three times [or duck twice and play another diamond for yourself if the defence switch! ] - I believe he ruled 3NT making.

Of course, there is the question of North's double. I do not think that someone who doubles 5♣ with that hand would double 3NT, so that suggestion was not considered deeply. As to whether it comes under the standards set by Law 12C1B the TD felt it did not.

I think that this case was only shown to me after he had ruled, but I did not disagree.

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on Jan 2 2010, 04:59 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jan 2 2010, 05:11 PM, said:

In summary: just because you know partner isn't certain he's making the right call does not necessarily either restrict your actions or tell you what the winning action will be.

You have a pretty distributional hand and partner bullies his way to 3NT without your showing your distribution. Is it right to pass or to play in a minor? Quite frankly it is a guess.

Now you know that partner is doubtful about bidding 3NT: this alters the odds on the guess, and moves it towards pulling rather than passing, thus suggesting a bid over a pass.

I think we simply disagree here.

You tell me that knowing partner is 'doubtful' about 3NT makes it more likely that pulling is right. You haven't told me why that is true. In my opinion, to show that pulling is demonstrably suggested, you have to explain what type of hand a slow 3NT bid suggests and what type of hand a fast 3NT bid suggests.

This is a different auction to the "standard" slow 3NT. If I splinter and partner bids a slow 3NT, we know that bidding on is suggested, because his only alternatives were signing off and bidding more and he chose the weakest option.

But here it is not at all clear to me what a slow 3NT bid suggests other than partner isn't certain it is he right call. I think (although I'm not certain) that partner would bid 3NT quickly on two types of hand:
(i) a lots-count for some value of lots (24+ perhaps?)
(ii) a hand that can count 9 tricks itself, probably via a long minor

and partner will bid 3NT slowly on three other types of hand
(iii) a strong hand with fewer points than "lots" that feels it is guessing somewhat
(iv) a good hand with a long minor that can't count 9 tricks
(v) a hand with solid hearts

[note that partner actually had type (iv)]

On which of these is it right to bid over 3NT? Probably (ii) [slam could be making] and (iv) [same reason] for certain; on the others it's a bit of a guess, and I don't see that partner's slow bid particularly suggests which type of hand he has.

[paulg]

On this specific hand, 4♣ is an excellent bid since it copes with nearly all the hands partner will typically have for a slow 3NT. Even opposite solid hearts it offers spade ruff(s).

So I'm inclined towards bluejak's camp on this one.

p

[jdonn]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 4 2010, 04:24 PM, said:

You tell me that knowing partner is 'doubtful' about 3NT makes it more likely that pulling is right. You haven't told me why that is true.

How is that not evident? The less sure partner is that 3NT is the right contract, the less likely it is that 3NT is actually the right contract. I will state that definitively. We don't even have to consider what hands he might have.

[bluejak]

Quote

You tell me that knowing partner is 'doubtful' about 3NT makes it more likely that pulling is right. You haven't told me why that is true. In my opinion, to show that pulling is demonstrably suggested, you have to explain what type of hand a slow 3NT bid suggests and what type of hand a fast 3NT bid suggests.

I believe strong and balanced is the only hand type that bids 3NT fast.

[Codo]

I cannot construct hands which are consistent with the bidding and are quick 3 NT bids beside hands with a long running minor.

Is AQx, KJxx,AKx,Akx really a quick 3 NT bid? Not for me. So please, construct some hands for me where you would bid 3 NT quickly.

[StevenG]

Just curious - do people never think ahead? I wouldn't bid like East on this, so I'm not going to comment on the specifics of this case, but I would certainly use the time available on the initial double to make sure I knew what I would do after any of the likely continuations. If, having realised THEN that I would often not get enough information from the auction to be clear what was best, I had decided that I would punt 3NT on some difficult sequences, the 3NT itself would come out in tempo.

In the case in hand, I understand that a slow 3NT suggests doubt about whether it is the best BID (not the best choice of final contract), but I certainly don't accept the view that a fast 3NT can only show specific hand types, or the inferences that follow from that assumption.

[duschek]

I think East's huddle makes it attractive for West to pull to 4♣. It is a strange bid on a 5-5 hand, but it seems to me that West thought it a decent try once East paused.

Adjusted score, 3NT, 10 tricks (spade lead, ♣A, two entries for heart plays). North's double is certainly no wild or gambling action, though pass would probably be easier to defend.

Edit: On second thought, weighted score between 9 tricks and 10 tricks. Diamond lead is certainly probable, but declarer will surely duck. Say 50% 9 tricks, 50% 10 tricks. Under Danish regulations, where the TD should be less inclined to assign a weighted score, simply 9 tricks.

[lamford]

jallerton, on Jan 1 2010, 12:05 PM, said:

3.  Therefore, had West passed rather than bid 4♣, there is every chance that this particular North would have doubled 3NT on the North hand.

This is rather academic, as Frances gives cogent arguments why pulling 3NT is not demonstrably (that word again) suggested. However, if you did decide that it was, and therefore imposed Pass, surely you would not include 100% of a double by North, the non-offender, in your weighted score?

[cherdanno]

bluejak, on Jan 4 2010, 07:50 PM, said:

Quote

You tell me that knowing partner is 'doubtful' about 3NT makes it more likely that pulling is right. You haven't told me why that is true. In my opinion, to show that pulling is demonstrably suggested, you have to explain what type of hand a slow 3NT bid suggests and what type of hand a fast 3NT bid suggests.

I believe strong and balanced is the only hand type that bids 3NT fast.

I disagree. The only hand that bids 3NT fast is the one that has 8 or 9 running tricks after a spade lead. Bidding 3NT because you have a balanced 20 count is maybe necessary, but also quite dangerous, and a second double may be more appealing.