Timeline for Should N-S be in 3NT if not vulnerable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7, 2020 at 1:59 | comment | added | Tom Au | I think I understand now. Aggressive Cohen/Berkowitz would consider this 24.5 3NT "normal" and conservative Frank Stewart might consider this "edgy," with the truth somewhere in between. Thanks for your help. | |
| Mar 7, 2020 at 1:41 | comment | added | Forget I was ever here | @TomAu: As you noted: "These are experts I consider on the "aggressive side. Both vulnerable". Defensive errors occur even against the best opponents, particularly on opening lead. Top declarers expect to make a bit more often because of those errors. | |
| Mar 7, 2020 at 1:21 | comment | added | Tom Au | I also didn't count anything extra for intermediates because N-S have two Ts, one 9 and two 8s, versus an expectation of two Ts, two 9s, and two 8s. Now if they had, say, three Ts between them, that would be different. The hand is clearly makable, but at 24.5, less than 50-50 (an even 25 is just over 50-50). I would consider this a "borderline," not "solid" 3NT bid when not vulnerable. | |
| Mar 7, 2020 at 1:13 | comment | added | Tom Au | I've never understood why you add +1 for 4-4-3-2. I was taught that was the "standard" or "par" shape. 4-3-3-3 is clearly -1, if you are making that adjustment, and depending on the cirstances, 5-3-3-2 could be +1, especially in NT. Put another way, relative to 4-3-3-3,(worth -1) I consider 4-4-3-2= +1, and 5-3-3-2= +2. More to the point, I consider 4-4-3-2 "intermediate" between 4-3-3-3 and 5-3-3-2, with 5-3-3-2 worth +2 over 4-3-3-3. I could make the case that 4-4-3-2 is worth +1.25 over 4-3-3-3, and 0.75 less than 5-3-3-2. | |
| Mar 7, 2020 at 0:16 | history | answered | Forget I was ever here | CC BY-SA 4.0 |