[mikl_plkcc]

Board 23, East, 5♦ by West, -3, -13.00 IMP

---

After partner opened 2NT, holding 4=4=5=0, the perfect Stayman shape, my response was to raise any response to game, as an 8-card fit is guaranteed. The best contract was 3NT, which could be made, despite my ♣ void, because opener had 4 ♣ with stopper which I couldn't ask for. I was afraid of opening lacking ♣ stopper for 3NT so I didn't take it into consideration.

Board 18, South, 4♠x by North, -2, -12.25 IMP

---

I held a 17 HCP balanced hand, and my partner held a ♠ bust with no strength. I thought that their 3NT was not makeable due to me having 17 HCP balanced, but my partner thought that they would make 3NT because he had no values so he escaped to 4♠, and used a line of play for 50% success but failed. Most of the field were at 3♠ or 2♠ making 10 tricks, while no opponents at other tables bid 3NT.

I did not understand why the my action was bad.

For board 23, why was 3NT better than 5♦ even when I had a void, and a fit was guaranteed? How could we prevent bad 3NT if we didn't have ♣ stopper?

For board 18, whose fault is it? My fault doubling 3NT or my partner's fault escaping to 4♠?

[mw64ahw]

Not sure how an 8-card fit is guaranteed if opener is 3325, The trick is to understand that opener likely has at least 4 Clubs with stoppers so with an Ace in hand just bid 3N.

On the 2nd hand partner has a max. 1 points 40-12-10-17 given the stopper ask. Now X 3N is OK if you can count 5 tricks which is just about feasible if you are given one of the minor suit finesses. I wouldn't take partner out of the 3N X given it should be based on tricks and it feels like a bit of a gamble to X in the first place.

[awm]

On the first hand, you need to consider not just your cards but also partner. With a strong 2NT opening (and no four-card major) it's very likely that partner will have some good cards in clubs. In general it's easier to make 3NT (nine tricks) than 5♦ (eleven tricks) and just because you have a void doesn't mean 5♦ will be better (unless partner has a weak holding opposite the void, which you can't know for sure but isn't very likely given the strong opening).

The second hand is less clear; I wouldn't double 3NT on your cards (you've already shown roughly this hand by doubling 1NT and it's not like you have five tricks in your hand) nor would I remove 3NTX with partner's hand (he's already shown a weak hand with a bunch of spades, if partner can beat 3NTX why not let him). However, looking only at your two hands it's not clear whether it's better to defend 3NT or play 4♠X. I'd chalk this up to an unlucky lie of the cards.

[jillybean]

I come across this often in our game. With the first hand, East rightly never wants to play in 3nt.
Have confidence in your partner, he opened 2nt, showing a willingness to play in NT. After the negative response to your Stayman inquiry, 3nt is the correct bid.

A contributing factor here could be the general aversion players have to playing in nt. I hated being left in 1nt, it was a very weak part of my game.

[pescetom]

I agree fully with awm about both hands.

In the second, both the double of 3NT and its remotion were mistakes (maybe there was also a bit of UI).
It helps to play transfers after our double of NT.

[mycroft]

1) What awm said. This is classic "bid my hand only" thinking. Partner has half the deck. If partner doesn't have club cards, then your diamonds are getting tapped from trick 1, and nothing's making. If partner does have club cards - which is very likely - as awm says, 9 tricks will be easier than 11. And if partner has never bid 2NT with 3325 (or (32)26!), how does he bid those hands?

2) This is one of Simon's classic traps. Chapter 1 of Why you lose at bridge (don't worry, not an insult - it's a great book. 95% of bridge players who haven't read it can learn something from it) has this beautiful 19 count where the opponents confidently bid their way to 3NT. IIRC, the quote is "Obviously, you have a great hand. Equally obviously, partner is bust, and they're going to make 3NT." Even if it does go down, it's not going down more than 1, and you're converting +50 into +100; and the risk is converting -400 into -550, so you're laying 3-1 total points odds (4-2 IMP odds). They've heard you double 1NT for penalty (for me, that's "top of range or better"; as a 12-14 1NT player myself, I *strongly* encourage that agreement over "equal or better") and voluntarily looked for, and bid, 3NT despite that.

Having said that, what was the double of 3♠? Unless it had a specific meaning other than "they can't make 3♠" (which everybody at the table already knows), it's better to pass - doubling just gives them the opportunity to make a "I have a half stopper, how about you?" pass (and, rarely. a "no, actually I think I *can* make it" redouble. Or vice versa, depending on agreements). For me, it means "partner, I don't have the quality of spades you're hoping for, don't lead them unless you have a reason to" (for instance here, where the "obvious" spade lead goes into declarer's AQ and you lose your K!) With that agreement, it's even clearer that this is one of Simon's hands and you should let them be.

Now, you're going to lose a lot anyway on this hand - -400 into -100 or -200 is still -7 or -5; but it's not -12.25 for -800 (or -10.5 (estimate) for -550). They bid well, and they get rewarded, not much you can do about it.

Note here that even if 3NT goes down, you're going from +150 against the -1s (and +250 against the -2s) to +200 (or +300), changing +4 to +5 (+6 to +7). Even here, the double is laying better than 3-1 odds against the opponents knowing what they're doing.

(and all of the above doesn't count in the fact that the double means they can absolutely play you for every card outside spades, rather than "every card but one" that it could have been if you doubled 1NT on 14. If that's the difference between making it and not, your double has converted +50 into -550. Which is mucho dinero!)