[losercover]

I took a class on doubles from Mike Lawrence. I would double with this hand because I have support for all suits. 3n implies at least one and one half diamond stoppers. This hand has been played at least 15 times. Every one, 3nt down three. Over a double I bid 4 spades. I don't like stayman or a transfer over 3nt.

---

[barmar]

Hamman's Rule: if you have a choice of reasonable bids, and 3NT is one of them, bid it.

[nige1]

 losercover, on 2013-September-05, 19:42, said:

I took a class on doubles from Mike Lawrence. I would double with this hand because I have support for all suits. 3n implies at least one and one half diamond stoppers. This hand has been played at least 15 times. Every one, 3nt down three. Over a double I bid 4 spades. I don't like stayman or a transfer over 3nt.

---

Over 3♦, IMO 3N = 10, Double = 9. 3N is unlucky because you can hold up your ♦A twice and you have the ace or king in every other suit. Hence, in order to defeat you, the pre-emptor usually needs a side-suit ace as an entry.

[CSGibson]

X is standout. You can convert 3♥ to 3N, and it shows tolerance for majors by doubling first.

[sfi]

Not so easy to convert 4H to 3NT though. And partner could easily bid that on a 4 card suit.

[EricK]

West hardly has a standard 2nd seat 3♦ opening - side 4 card major, two outside first round controls. Against most 3♦ openings, 3NT is a fine contract. But when an opponent makes a gambling bid (like 3♦ on that hand) sometimes the gamble pays off.

[Cyberyeti]

 EricK, on 2013-September-06, 00:37, said:

West hardly has a standard 2nd seat 3♦ opening - side 4 card major, two outside first round controls. Against most 3♦ openings, 3NT is a fine contract. But when an opponent makes a gambling bid (like 3♦ on that hand) sometimes the gamble pays off.

Agree with this, against most 3♦ bids, 3N is the right contract, very few humans with a void, a 4 card major and a rule of 20 hand will open 3♦.

How would you feel if partner had Kxxxx, Ax, xxx, QJx in 4♠ and the defence went K♦ ace ruff, A♣, club ruff cash 2 more diamonds, partner ruffing the second to give opener a second club ruff with 3N cold ? Extreme examples like the actual hand are not so useful here, 3N is absolutely normal.

[gwnn]

I like double too. Hamman's rule is cool but double allows for more intelligent auctions here.

[gnasher]

 sfi, on 2013-September-05, 23:00, said:

Not so easy to convert 4H to 3NT though. And partner could easily bid that on a 4 card suit.

I wouldn't be very worried about his bidding 4♥. He won't often have the values for it with only a 4-card suit, and I have ♦A to protect us against a force.

I'd be more worried about 4♣, which he would bid with Kxx xxx xx QJxxx, where 3NT just depends on finding the aces where we expect them to be.

[mcphee]

The risk of double means you are likely to pass 3NT, a very possible game, while bidding 3N rules out no other games.

[sfi]

 gnasher, on 2013-September-06, 04:13, said:

I wouldn't be very worried about his bidding 4♥. He won't often have the values for it with only a 4-card suit, and I have ♦A to protect us against a force.

I'd be more worried about 4♣, which he would bid with Kxx xxx xx QJxxx, where 3NT just depends on finding the aces where we expect them to be.

It's not so hard to construct hands where he would. Take two of the spades in the example hand and put them into the club suit, for instance. Now 4H is a normal choice but 3NT is clearly better.

As you point out, 3NT also wins on many (probably most) hands where partner isn't going to bid a major.

[gnasher]

 sfi, on 2013-September-06, 07:09, said:

It's not so hard to construct hands where he would. Take two of the spades in the example hand and put them into the club suit, for instance. Now 4H is a normal choice but 3NT is clearly better.

If you're bidding game with xxx Axxx x QJxxx I think 4♦ is the normal choice, or at least the right choice. To risk playing in a 4-3 fit with poor trumps, moderate values and the force coming in the wrong hand seems unwise when there's a good alternative.

[sfi]

 gnasher, on 2013-September-06, 07:28, said:

If you're bidding game with xxx Axxx x QJxxx I think 4♦ is the normal choice, or at least the right choice. To risk playing in a 4-3 fit with poor trumps, moderate values and the force coming in the wrong hand seems unwise when there's a good alternative.

Fair criticism - I overlooked that. Still not as good a game as 3NT though .

[jogs]

 EricK, on 2013-September-06, 00:37, said:

West hardly has a standard 2nd seat 3♦ opening - side 4 card major, two outside first round controls. Against most 3♦ openings, 3NT is a fine contract. But when an opponent makes a gambling bid (like 3♦ on that hand) sometimes the gamble pays off.

I think many players would open 3♦ with that hand.
We need a poll.

[Lord Molyb]

I would open 3♦ with that hand.

[wank]

3d on this hand is crazy. yes many people would do it, but that's because many people are indisciplined and have no sense of hand evaluation.

[PhilKing]

 wank, on 2013-September-17, 11:23, said:

3d on this hand is crazy. yes many people would do it, but that's because many people are indisciplined and have no sense of hand evaluation.

You should be getting off a plane in Turkey right now, you shambles!

[wank]

now i shouldn't. bell should. my plane arrived 4 hours ago. i've been sat pissing time away at the airport cafe.

[PhilKing]

 wank, on 2013-September-17, 12:41, said:

now i shouldn't. bell should. my plane arrived 4 hours ago. i've been sat pissing time away at the airport cafe.

Excellent.

[the hog]

I would double on this hand and not bid 3NT.There is an insufficient source of tricks to make 3NT a good bid.
My scores: X = 10, 3NT = 6.