Right? wrong? Not sure.

[kenberg]

I was on the griddle yesterday with the following:

QJT9xxx (not positive about the 9 but I think so)
9xx (that 9 might be useful)
x
xx

So I recall anyway.


Partner opens 1 , rho passes. Pretty junkie even for a WJS but I bid 2 .
The opponents stay out of the auction, partner bids 3NT, I must decide whether to pull to 4 . I didn't. There were mixed reviews about my choice.

I considered pulling but my argument against it goes as follows.
First, I have about what I said I have and, anyway, once a player makes a preempt usually he stays quiet.
Second, I can imagine partner having a hand where the only purpose of my spades would be that the opponents can only cash two high spades while partner is establishing 9 tricks in the other three suits. If partner has, say, KQJTxx then that looks like five ricks in , and so four tricks in the round suits would do it.

As the cards were: The hand makes 4 but that's because, for starters, partner has the Ax and the Kx is onside. It still needs a bit more as I recall, so 4 is hardly rock solid.

I didn't save the hands but I'll try to recall approximately what we had. My approximate recall of partner's hand:


Ax
KTx
AQxxx
KQx

Something like that. An 18 count I think, although maybe it was a 19 count., And maybe that fifth diamond was a small heart. Not sure. But let's look at the combined hands as I recall them:


Ax
KTx
AQxxx
KQx




QJT9xxx
9xx
x
xx


I have put my hand at the bottom, to go with me being a possible declarer.

Playing I can, once I get the lead, play A and ruff a , rin the Q picking up the suit. So that gives me seven tricks and the A. I still need two more. Maybe the A is onside, maybe the A is onside, maybe I can establish the K by ruffing , maybe a lot of things and, as I recall, the 4 contract actually makes.

But the point is that while expecting partner to develop 9 tricks without making use of the suit might seem a bit optimistic, playing the hand in 4 is also optimistic.

Here is a question: Suppose, over my 2 , partner were to bid 2NT. What is it? It could be reasonable to play this as saying "Hey, pard. Maybe we can make game, maybe not. Maybe we belong in spades, maybe in NT. Feel free tp pass, or to raise to 3NT, or retreat to 3 , or bid 4 ." I don't know if that is an accepted meaning for the call, but it would be useful here. I would retreat to 3 . Yes, it makes 4 , but 3 is a reasonable contract.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with my choice of pass over 3NT. These hands are given for discussion, I like discussion. As of now, I would pass the next time this hand arises as well.

[jcreech]

I'm sorry Ken, while I would not blast a partner who did not pull 3NT, I would always pull it to 4 myself.  Unless partner has AKx, or maybe any three, I think this hand will always play better in spades than NT. 

I do not have any problems with this as a WJO.

If partner were to try 2NT, I would regard it as non-forcing, but I would still pull to 3 .

While I do think it is possible that the NT contracts will make when the spade contract goes down, I think the number of hands where only the minimum number of tricks will be 8 when the choice is between 2NT and 3 or 9 tricks when the choice is between 3NT and 4 will be fewer than hands where spades will make one more trick than NT.  Perhaps we should put out an APB for Blu to do one of his simulations.

[kenberg]

Take an extreme (ittakes a bit ofan extreme to go to game after the WJS):

x
AQx
KQJTxx
AKx

Not enough for a 2 opening. So you open 1 and partner bids 2 . On an opening lead you have 9 tricks after driving out the A. On an opening !c lead it's a little trickier, but maybe you have AKJ. Or AKx instead of AQx. Of course maybe you can make 4 . And maybe not. Maybe you have a void instead of a stiff.

It seems to me that a hand where I bid 3NT over the 2 is likely to look something like this. Not an everyday hand, but 1 - 2 - 3NT is not an everyday auction.

I would pull 2NT to 3 , that's a different situation. And on the hands as they were, I do not want to be in 4 until I learn that the Kx is onside. Well, I don't want to be in 3NT either. I am not all that fond of my 2 bid but with a seventh spades and a stiff diamond it seemed right.

Pulling 3NT to 4 would be an exception to the general rule of preempting and then shutting up. Perhaps justified by the seventh spade.  We have one trick and, we hope, two tricks so that seventh trick is very useful. Of course the A might also be onside. So maybe yes, with the seventh spade I should do it. Not with six. But then I am not at all sure I would bid 2 with only QJTxxx. Again a stiff , say I am 6=3=1=3,  might convince me to get us out of diamonds and into spades, but it's close. Usually passing 1 leads to some action on my left and then I maybe can show spades later at the one level depending on what happens.