Competitive situation at MP

[temp3600]

You hold Kxx - A - KQJ8xx - Jxx in first seat at MatchPoints, Red vs White. The bidding goes :

 

1D  (1S)  X  (2H)

?

 

X promises 4 hearts.

2H is natural, non forcing.

 

What do you bid, and how much do you like it ?

[Guest Jlall]

I bid 3D, I like it fine. A free bid shows solid values, but not the world (about what I have). Pard has shown some values and I'm not selling out to 2H so here it is.

[P_Marlowe]

3D

 

Marlowe

[joker_gib]

Yes, 3♦, good suit and not minimum, wtp ?

 

Alain

[mike777]

great problem

 

Would Al Roth open this hand ..I think yes but think this is extras?

Please no mean responses. I assume x =8 whcp.

[Chamaco]

I see I am in a minority, but at this vulnerability I shall pass.

 

I'd bid 3D holding better intermediates (say the T or the 98, not just the 8), in other words, at these colors, I rebid 3D with a suit that is very likely to play for 1 loser opposite pard shortness.

KQJ8xx vs a singleton is not guaranteed not to lose 2 tricks if diamonds split badly, and, at red, -200 might be a bad board.

 

Pass has the advantage of flexibility: pard can still double for business, or, it is still possible that our best strain is not diamonds but clubs.

 

Passing indeed relinquishes chances to compete in diamonds (if we do not rebid diamonds, pard will hardly bid them, I suppose).

 

However, I'd feel better about my pass if I were playing weak NT and 1D opening guaranteeing an unbalanced hand....

[mr1303]

I bid 3D, and wouldn't consider any other action.

[Al_U_Card]

How good IS your hand? Good suit, decent distribution, reasonable honor placement, top of range for a minimum opener. The 6th diamond says bid 3D so I would.

[pbleighton]

3D, but the vulnerability makes pass pretty close.

 

Peter

[whereagles]

Nice add for good-bad 2NT :P

 

Not playing that, 3♦ is in order. Hearts, very likely, split 1-3-4-5 and it's necessary to help pard take a decision, should LHO bid 3♥.

[mghmaine]

Pass. Spades on my left and partner has values in my singleton. No problem

[luis]

3♦, automatic.

[han]

yep, 3D.

[cherdano]

I think this is a bad hand for good-bad 2NT btw. You would either overbid with 3♦, or you haven't shown your nice suit when they bid over your 2N.

 

Arend

[jdeegan]

:) Looks like a comfortable 3♦ bid. Only danger is our missing a game if partner goes ultraconservative. 3NT makes opposite a 10 HCP magic hand: Ax in diamonds, the ace of spades and the queen of clubs (I don't mind missing the game opposite this particular hand). I would hope pard can bid on with most 12+ HCP hands since my 'free' 3♦ bid does promise extra values and 6+ diamonds. Busy bidding opponents reduces the likelihood that pard has extras.

[adhoc3]

.....pass ...

 

I'm another minority.

 

I think I have a poor hand. Stiff A and SK looks ugly. I will not hope pard bid 3NT after 3D and I don't worry about how to defence 2H. So I'll wait and hear.

[Codo]

3 ♦ had not seen a problem before reading some posts, but even now, I have 14 HCPs, some cotrols and a 6 card suit. Much to much for a minimum opener...

[temp3600]

Here's the full hand :

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sj9xhqt87dxxckqxx&w=saqtxxhxxxdxcatxx&e=sxxhkj9xxdat9xcxx&s=skxxhadkqj8xxcjxx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

I bid 3D, and it went :

 

1D (1S) X (2H)

3D (X) All Pass

 

West's X showed willingness to compete, and East had an easy pass. This lead to -200 which wasn't a complete success.

 

Since the bad spade position can be guessed from the bidding, and we are misfitted in hearts, I was wondering if these negative adjustments were enough not to rebid the diamonds. Thanks for you replies.

[Chamaco]

This raises another point on bidding aggressively /conservatively as opener vs responder (and especially about negative doubles).

 

We all like to bid (this is true especially if you are good declarer-unlike me).

 

However, I have seen that there are some people who:

 

a. like to be pushy when holding opener's hand here ( I do think that KQJxxx suit quality is often overrated, lacking intermediates- in situations where pard does not guarantee a fit)

 

b. others like to be pushy as responder when making a negative double; for instance, in this sequence, they would have Xed with responder's hand, even holding only xxx-K9xx-xx-Kxxx which is even weaker than the hand you posted

 

 

Of course, I think all approaches are plausible after pship agreements.

However, my point is:

if we are going to bid 3D with opener's hand, then in the same partnership it is not advisable to double negative with light hands such as xxx-K9xx-xx-Kxxx

 

If one side is aggressive, the other one must be conservative, at least at red: if opener is to decide whether bidding 3D, he should know if he can expect some "good stuff" and NOT just a pair of straw kings with a side 4 card major.

 

Or, we can watch the same situation the other way around: if - by pship agreement - I am going to make a negative double with just 2 Kings and a side 4cM, I want to be sure that pard does not hang me at the 3 level just because he has KQJxxx in his suit that I did not support.

 

I think the outcome of the posted hand (which turned out badly despite responder having a textbook negative double) is self-explanatory

[Guest Jlall]

However, my point is:

if we are going to bid 3D with opener's hand, then in the same partnership it is not advisable to double negative with light hands such as xxx-K9xx-xx-Kxxx

I do not think that this logically follows. In bridge, sometimes both players have minimums for their actions and a 2 trick set occurs (often happens in game bidding). Sometimes both players have maximums and a perfect game or slam is missed. That does not mean that both players did not take correct probabilistic actions. It simply means that they didn't work out.

 

I think the outcome of the posted hand (which turned out badly despite responder having a textbook negative double) is self-explanatory

 

That would be the definition of resulting.

 

Here is 1 way of looking at it. Given the auction up to the point of 2H would you like to A) compete with the NS hands, with a good chance of pushing them up or :rolleyes: sell out to 2H? Personally, I'd love to bid 3D. It is unlikely they will X us, LHO may feel compelled to compete to 3H if he has 3 of them which we may or may not set, and we seem to either be making or go down 1. Given our 2 hands, I like my bid. LHO happened to get us with his weird X, but that's life, you aren't going to get rich defending 2H with these cards.

 

But again, even if partner had the worst possible hand for us and we went down 2, I wouldn't feel bad. On average, partner won't have the worst possible hand.

 

Bridge is not perfect. We will not always find the best contracts and will sometimes go for numbers. We just have to try and make the bid that will get us the most points possible on average. This does not mean that that bid will work.

[Chamaco]

Justin,

 

don't get me wrong, I am talking here just as a student of the game, not as a lecturer, so take all of the following as "thinking aloud", not as lecturing.

 

We ordinary players are taught many principles, such as:

 

1. Principle 1: if you invite heavy, then pard accepts light (or viceversa if you wish).

Here the principle is the same: if one is aggressive, the other one should be conservative, *unless the hand has some special feature*.

 

I simply do not believe that KQJxxx in an unsupported suit, RED vs white is a special feature, but give me the KQJTxx and I will (or if we are white, then even down 1 doubled or -2 undoubled could be a good gamble vs opps likely partscore)

 

I have seen way too many hands where KQJxxx lost 2 tricks in the suit, when pard did not support in the bidding.

 

 

2. Principle 2

Do not play pard for the magic hand.

 

Here, opener rebids 3D and even if pard produces an 8 count, we are off 1.

And note that pard's hand is among the best 8 count he could produce: think if he had a singleton or a void in diamonds, with a shapely hand.

 

Really, I am not trying to be "resulting": I do think that responder has a pretty good 8 count and yet we are off 1.

If we allowed responder to bid the same way with just 2 kings, here we would be easily off 2 or 3.

 

 

Finally: I know a decent bridge player should not rely on slogans but analyze every single deal, critically.

However, sometimes old, trivial wisdom does work out (after all it is just a set of empirically-derived principles, which - on average - have worked in the past, just as the common thinking that 26 hcp = game).

 

But here, in my opinion, there are too many "old wisdoms" to violate (including vulnerability issues and the fact that we should be wary to compete at the 3 level in no fit auctions).

 

 

That does not mean that both players did not take correct probabilistic actions. It simply means that they didn't work out.

 

I agree that sometimes the deck was just dealt in a magic manner by the God of bridge and percentage actions fail. When this happens, I agree that one should just shrug and accept it.

 

But sometimes bad results could indeed be foreseen in advance, without dismissing them with the motto "***** happens".

I do think that - in this specific instance - the bad result was predictable from the earlier bidding.

However, if double indeed promises a minimum of 8 hcp, it might fall in the "grey area".

 

But, back to my main point, I meant that, if we indeed allow for superlight negative doubles when red vs white, I think that THIS really increases the chances for such accidents.

 

But perhaps this is only the influence of my current readings ("Picture bidding" by Al Roth, together to the "Galactic guide for hitchhikers" :rolleyes: )

 

So, Justin, just pass me the crack pipe :rolleyes:

[Strangway]

3D. Likely to have a play and unlikely to get doubled. 2H looks like it will have too good a play to leave. I don't think 3D will go down 2 with enough frequency to pass.

[HeartA]

another 3♦ here.