[1eyedjack]

A problem that I have with 4H, or 5H, or any number of H earlier in the auction is that it does not express the double fit, which could be germaine to partner's decision what to do over 6S. I would still have left the 7 level decision to partner, but would have found a bid earlier which would have expressed a fit for both reds. Perhaps 4S. Hey, that even fields partner's natural 2S bid.

[Phil]

J - if you give me another situation where its not right to come in the round before and then have to take a later action based on new information, then I have no problem with taking a call. My partners do not get rattled when I do things that I believe are EV+ like: passing forcing bids, pulling penalties doubles even when its not clear to, etc..

But - it still seems pretty LOL bizarre for such a weak hand to be able to make a save / pass decision, even if someone could convince me that its EV+ (can they?).

I've been out this morning, and I want to contribute more, but I have to bail.

[JLOGIC]

Why would it not be a weak hand that saves w/r over a slam? Do you usually save w/r over a slam with a strong hand? Or do you just never save? I do not understand the objection to a weak hand saving over a slam. The hand has no defense and a double fit and a partner who has bid over 1S p 2C. To not save would be completely awful, sorry.

Wait, weren't you the one that said it was 100 % right to save here? What are you saying now?

[JLOGIC]

Selected quotes from you in this thread Phil:

"There is simply no practical way that a three count should be making a save decision over a small slam."
"I mean, its quite right that saving is 100% right here. We have a double fit and no defense."
"My partners do not get rattled when I do things that I believe are EV+"
"But - it still seems pretty LOL bizarre for such a weak hand to be able to make a save / pass decision, even if someone could convince me that its EV+ "

You seem to think that it is right to save (in fact that it is 100%). Your only bridge related argument is that we have a double fit and no defense, quite right...that's a good argument for saving.

Your reasons for not saving are that we have a THREE COUNT, and that it is bizarre for a weak hand to make a pass or save decision. What does this mean? These are not bridge arguments. Either you think it is the right decision to save or you don't. If not, why not? Do you think we are beating them too often? These THREE POINT and WEAK HANDS CAN'T SAVE arguments are just emotional and weird/random sayings, and are failing to look at the bridge problem. They are not rational. Personally I do not even understand the notion that only strong hands should save over slam, usually with a strong hand I do not want to save over slams. But that is also irrelevant, either it is a +EV decision to save or it is not. I think peoples games would improve if they stopped thinking in terms of sayings, whatever they might be, and just try to make good bridge decisions.

If your partners don't get rattled when you make good bridge decisions that's great. In that case, that would not be a reason to avoid saving. Since you said saving is 100 % here, and your partner will not get rattled, why not save?

[JLOGIC]

BTW I am not trying to nag you but I think it is a serious hole in your game if your thought process on this hand is "how can a three point hand save, I have to pass, even though I think saving is 100 % the right bridge action." These kind of emotional thoughts are not helpful when you're playing. Just do what you think is right. I do not see how upon analysis one could view it as a losing bridge action to save over 6S with this hand, it is basically impossible for me to fathom. Partner didn't even X 2C, he bid 2 spades.

[JLOGIC]

 mikeh, on 2012-May-18, 12:22, said:

Ok, so I was guilty of a little hyperbole I would still pass, tho with the expectation that it will work out badly a lot of the time...however, I'd feel worse about saving and seeing we'd beat slam than I'd feel about passing and finding that we had a good save....because I've already made the big mistake by not bidding earlier....I generally try to assume that my earlier error was 'right' rather than make a desperate guess to make up for it.

This is more emotional discussion that is not focused on solving the bridge problem at hand. You'd feel worse about saving when slam was down than not saving and missing a good save...ok well that is probably logical since doing the first will score worse than doing the second. However, our feelings should not matter, it should just be a question of how often the first happens compared to the second.

I do not understand how you can think it will be frequent at all that we are beating slam. I mean, for starters the opps have keycarded/powered into slam with a double fit. We have no black suit tricks, and we know the black suits split well for them. We even have Tx of clubs so if partner happens to have a random Qx of clubs, they will often not have the choice of misguessing it (even though they would be unlikely to do so anyways if partner showed up with a stiff spade). Are you really expecting to have 2 red suit tricks? It is almost impossible. The odds that they are making this must be at least 90 %. Just think about layouts where we will beat 6S, I bet it will take you a while even though it will be possible.

To not even consider how often they will go down in slam as part of your analysis because you'd feel worse phantoming than missing a good save, or because you think saving is desperate, or some other sayings like "I generally try to assume my earlier error was right"...I mean what does that mean? Personally I think if you bid 4H you would still have to bid more to get your point across, as you might have a trick, and have not suggested strongly that partner should save at the 7 level yet, and you really wouldn't be that far off in saving by yourself. I do not see why saving is desperate, it is just mind numbingly obvious imo that they are making and that we are not going for 1700.

I'm not trying to nag on you either, I just think the emotional reactions in this thread and the logic used for not saving such as "I assume my previous error was right, saving is desperate, I feel very bad when I phantom save, it is bizarre for a THREE COUNT to save at the 7 level, 7C is a partnership killer even if it works, I don't see how a weak hand can save at the 7 level..." etc is not bridge related, it is noise, and I think people often think in those terms at the table to their own detriment. The only valid reason to not save in my opinion is you think you will beat them quite often, and I honestly don't see how one could hold that view which is presumably why no one has made that argument.

[Fluffy]

2♠ can't be natural obviously.

2NT shows the reds, what is left? the only thing that makes sense: clubs+ another. Michael's cuebid style would suggest hearts+clubs.

[Phil]

Ive come around here and I agree that saving is the right bridge move. This could be the time that someones has to take a unilateral action in order to get a good score and I have no problem with ythat.

Part of me still thinks that the partnership functions better if in were to bid 4♥ directly and partner is the one doing the saving.

[SteveMoe]

7♣ would never occur to me. If 2♠ natural then 3♠; if 2♠ Michaels, then 4♥ at 2nd turn.