BPO-006A

[inquiry]

If you haven't voted yet in Poll 006, there may still be time. Voting is open until noon EDT tomorrow (about 16 hours from the time of this posting)... Run, go vote, if you haven't voted yet.

 

Here is the first problem ripe for discussing

 

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sk3h5dj72cat87432]133|100|BPO-006A

Pard opens 1♠, 1N by you, 2♥ by pard.

 

[/hv]

[Blofeld]

I plumped for 3♣, but I can see that both my heart singleton and club ace could be useful in 2♠, so I'm not confident that this is the best action.

[hrothgar]

BPO-006A: 2S

 

Difficult question: If partner has good Spades, then 2S probably our best contract. If partner has weak Spades, then we would prefer to declare 3C. Partner is odds on to hold a 5=4=3=1 hand.

 

S AQ862

H AQT2

D 942

C x

 

Looks typical. Partner's major suit length makes it comparatively likely that his honor strength is located in those suit. Equally significant our three club bid telegraphs a Diamond lead which we really won't welcome.

 

Balanced against this, our hand is worth two tricks in a Spade contract (maybe three if we get a Heart ruff). In a Club contract, our hand is worth six tricks.

 

Ultimately, this decision boils down to quick tricks. I think that there is too much chance that the opponents will cash 3 red tricks and two slow trump tricks versus 3C.

[luke warm]

006A - 2S, assuming MP (as were the others phil posted)... only other option, and it isn't a bad one, is 3C... but at matchpoints i think i'd rather play 2S

[pigpenz]

3♣ for me, my hand rates to take alot more tricks in clubs than other contracts

[pclayton]

It didnt make the problem - but the scoring on this was IMP pairs.

 

Not sure how we rectify this now..........

[pigpenz]

i think in the posting of the problems someone else had asked about that there wasnt a mention of imps or mps

[Double !]

3 clubs

 

I'm not going to try to guess whether or not my partner does or does not have good hearts and spades. My crystal ball is in the shop for repairs. (Maybe the perfect hand can crossruff to 8 or 9 tricks in spades before the smoke clears. Doesn't usually happen for me.) I think that I shall just bid what I have. Seven decent clubs headed by an ace and a good fitting honor in P's long suit. Some of partner's high cards could still be in the minor suits (P still has 3 or 4 cards in the minors: maybe an honor or two.) That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

DHL

[cherdano]

I think Ben clarified that we should assume IMPs.

 

I just bid 3♣, what I have. 2♠ is too deep for me.

 

Arend

[42]

Also 3♣ here. I think this "weak" hand produces more tricks with its long suit as trumps, which may be more or less useless in a spade contract.

[joker_gib]

I also vote 3♣ cause I really have the feeling that the job is not done with 2♠ and at imps (I assume) we can still have 5♣ or 3NT...

 

Alain

[helene_t]

With my f2f pd, I play invitational jump shifts which means that 3♣ would show a hand like this. Without that toy, I suppose 3♣ now is still weak, on the basis of the idea that you could bid 2NT with some of the invitational hands. But for some reason I voted 2♠, not sure why anymore.

[Gerben42]

3♣

 

The most likely making part score, with an added bonus that if partner can bid 3NT, this has a good chance. Stronger hands with ♣ have to bid 3NT themselves, remember that to the holder of a 6-card suit, 2NT is forcing (either you make 3 or 2 will go down).

[badderzboy]

I would just bid 2♠ as partner has asked for a preference - he has at most 4 cards in the minors so I could easily have a 7-0 fit missing KQJ9 ♣ and 3 diamond losers. It must be easier to make 8 tricks than 9 here even in a 5-2 fit?

 

Steve

[P_Marlowe]

3C, for me, it is irrelevant if playing

MP or IMP's

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

I would just bid 2♠ as partner has asked for a preference - he has at most 4 cards in the minors so I could easily have a 7-0 fit missing KQJ9 ♣ and 3 diamond losers. It must be easier to make 8 tricks than 9 here even in a 5-2 fit?

 

Steve

It may be easier to get only 8 tricks,

but your hand will produce 5-4 tricks,

if clubs are trumps, and only two if spade

is trump.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[luke warm]

3C, for me, it is irrelevant if playing

MP or IMP's

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

should it be? irrelevant, that is

[Rebound]

I agree that the method of scoring may be irrelevant - and voted for 2♠.

 

I've been doing a lot of reading lately, articles by Fred, in particular, and my understanding of them leads me to believe he will agree with me here.

 

Of course, if I embarrass us both by having misapplied your lessons, I apologize, Fred. Rest easy in my assurance that the failing is mine, not in your concise and interesting writing.

[helene_t]

Even at matchpoints, 110=110. I go for whatever partscore is more likely to make.

 

At IMPs, pd will make more aggresive game tries. Over 2♠, he can still try with 2NT and then maybe 3♣ will show this hand. But partner may not understand this. Anyway, this is somewhat far-fetched. In practice, the scoring hardly matters.

[Al_U_Card]

I play 3C as drop dead WITHOUT 2S pieces. I have Kx and a bushel of points so 2S for me.

[inquiry]

As you can imagine, the panel's vote was split (well it did favor one bid) on this hand between 2♠ and 3♣. Interestingly, the panelist had a logical reason for choosing one or the other bid.

 

If I had to characterize the bidding by the panel, the optomist bid 2♠ (if game still likely, it will most probably be in ♠'s), the realist/pesimist bid 3♣ (more tricks in my hand in clubs). I will wait a day or two more of the straggling panelist to vote then post the results.

[han]

Very tough, I voted 3C.

 

Partner could easily be 6-4-2-1, and will not enjoy hearing 3C.

 

I think that 3C is more likely to make than 2S.

[Guest Jlall]

I was really torn on this one. Either bid could be right and there probably isn't much difference long run.

[han]

I think that this hand is suitable for a computer simulation.

[mikeh]

As you can imagine, the panel's vote was split (well it did favor one bid) on this hand between 2♠ and 3♣. Interestingly, the panelist had a logical reason for choosing one or the other bid.

 

If I had to characterize the bidding by the panel, the optomist bid 2♠ (if game still likely, it will most probably be in ♠'s), the realist/pesimist bid 3♣ (more tricks in my hand in clubs). I will wait a day or two more of the straggling panelist to vote then post the results.

Interesting: where did I fit? :(

 

I seem to recall (but at my age, the memory is one of the first things to go), that I voted for 3♣ mostly out of pessimism (I call it realism) but also because my partner would know what to do with an unlikely 5=4=1=3, say Axxxx Axxx x Kxx.

 

Surely that answer displayed some optimism (as well as perhaps the cumulative effect of too many mind-altering substances in my long-ago youth?)