[y66]

Matchpoints, r/r, LHO deals and opens 1H.

Jxx 9x Q8xxx 9xx

1H X P 2D
P 2N P ?

X then 2N showed a balanced hand that was too good to overcall 1N (15-18) originally.

[mtvesuvius]

I'll pass... I have a feeling that if I bid 3♦ we will be playing 3NT.

[jdaming]

Pass. Hopefully p has the good ♥ stops he promised and can use my Q♦/♦ length.

[neilkaz]

Also passing. Not much reason to think that we can take more tricks in ♦ than NT and not wanting to hear 3NT from PD.

[Old York]

3♦ should be sign-off here, if partner bids again then any disaster will be his fault

I hate these matchpoint decisions, but 3♦ must be the safest part-score, and might beat 2NT on the traveller

Tony

[FrancesHinden]

Funny, the one call I would definitely not make is 3D.
Partner has not shown diamond support now he has rebid NT - he could be 4=4=1=4, for example. He could even have a hand such as

AQx
KQ10
xx
AKQxx

I think the choice is between pass and 3NT.
While you might think 3NT is crazy, the question is not how likely it is to make, but how likely it is that you will improve your matchpoint score by bidding it.

At IMPs I think there's a lot to be said for it.
After all, if partner has

A10x
KJx
AKx
Axxx

3NT is probably making on a heart lead (and possibly on a spade lead)
This is a minimum in high cards, but has a diamond fit.

and if partner has

Axx
AQxx
Kx
AKxx

then everything is pretty hopeless

[Phil]

I would pass even at IMPs, but at MPs it looks clear. Our hand has NT shape, and our diamonds aren't great. I think the 3♦ bidders are hoping for specifically Kxx of diamonds or some holding where we aren't running diamonds, but we don't lose too many diamond tricks if the suit is trump.

[gwnn]

Many times 3NT works on hands like these, or after a 2NT opening. Opps go all Phil Hellmuth on me on seeing my hand and then misdefend and we just chalk up our +600's. Not on this hand though, it's just a bit too weak.

[mikeh]

Frances nailed it

[hanp]

Clear pass at MPs, going down one more in NT when partner has the badly fitting hand is a disaster.

[Hanoi5]

Quote

Frances nailed it

As usual. I'm not sure if someone said it but:

- 2NT=120 3♦=110

- The lead is probably a heart, is it better to have it through or towards partner's hand?

[mikestar]

Here 3♦ should look more like ♠xx ♥xx ♦xxxxxx ♣xx. The signoff in this sequence should send the message "my hand is totally worthless for NT, but I have some tricks if diamonds are trumps."

[whereagles]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 25 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Funny, the one call I would definitely not make is 3D.

I find that rather strange. Wouldn't you, over a 2NT opener, transfer to hearts with a similar hand and 5 hearts, and then pass?

[ArtK78]

whereagles, on Mar 25 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 25 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Funny, the one call I would definitely not make is 3D.

I find that rather strange. Wouldn't you, over a 2NT opener, transfer to hearts with a similar hand and 5 hearts, and then pass?

You already bid 2♦ and then your partner bid 2NT - that is much different than if your partner opened 2NT and you have 5 hearts when you haven't previously bid hearts.

Besides, notrump scores a lot better than a minor suit - only a little better than a major suit. You would have to score 2 tricks more in diamonds to score equal or better than notrump, and only one trick more in a major suit to score better than notrump.

[whereagles]

ArtK78, on Mar 25 2009, 09:54 PM, said:

You already bid 2♦ and then your partner bid 2NT - that is much different than if your partner opened 2NT and you have 5 hearts when you haven't previously bid hearts.

That would only be right if pard were to bid 3♦ every time he had 3 cards there. With any balanced hand in the 18-20 range, he's bidding 2NT regardless of his diamond holding. So the chance for a diamond fit is about as good as if he had opened 2NT.

The fact that NT scores better is, perhaps, the only good reason to pass 2NT. But then again, you actually have to *make* 2NT to score 120 Might be a lot easier to make 3♦, even if it's only 110.

[gnasher]

whereagles, on Mar 25 2009, 11:06 PM, said:

The fact that NT scores better is, perhaps, the only good reason to pass 2NT. But then again, you actually have to *make* 2NT to score 120 Might be a lot easier to make 3♦, even if it's only 110.

Indeed. If we take one of Frances's examples and swap the red suits, we get

A10x
AKx
KJx
Axxx

Opposite this hand, 3♦ might score three tricks more than 2NT.

Passing 2NT is likely to gain only if partner has ♦AKx or his own source of tricks, presumably in clubs. Although these hands constituted 67% of Frances's examples, I think that in real life they'll occur less often than mundane hands with ♦Hxx and no particular source of tricks. I'd bid 3♦.

[FrancesHinden]

whereagles, on Mar 25 2009, 08:42 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 25 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Funny, the one call I would definitely not make is 3D.

I find that rather strange. Wouldn't you, over a 2NT opener, transfer to hearts with a similar hand and 5 hearts, and then pass?

Possibly, but when partner opens 2NT he has a balanced hand, on this auction he hasn't necessarily got a balanced hand.

I agree that 3D might play better than 2NT. I just think it's against the odds that it does.

[whereagles]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 26 2009, 11:31 AM, said:

Possibly, but when partner opens 2NT he has a balanced hand, on this auction he hasn't necessarily got a balanced hand.

Why should he bid 2NT with an unbalanced hand, when he has simple bids such as 2♠, 3♣, 3♦ to show it?

I think it's pretty much a lock he's balanced. And odds-on he has 3 diamonds. Even if he doesn't, 3♦ is far from hopeless (until you see dummy, at least... lol).

[Phil]

I'm coming around to 3♦.

Aside from partner having five running clubs, diamonds appears to be better anytime diamonds aren't running or when partner has no more than a double heart stopper.

Look at a death hand like: Kxx, AQxx, Ax, AKxx. 2N looks -2 or -3, but you should be able to scramble at least 8 and possibly 9 tricks in diamonds.