MPs vs IMPs

[han]

A friend and me were disccussing how the form of scoring would influence our decisions on this hand:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sqj93hq3dkq108cq43]133|100|opponents silent:

 

1H - 1S

3H - ??[/hv]

 

What would your call be at MPs and at IMPs?

[Halo]

4H

 

I'm not sure what you were discussing.

[Free]

Always 3NT

[pbleighton]

4H always.

 

I almost never bid 3NT with an 8 card major suit fit, even at matchpoints.

 

Peter

[han]

I notice that I didn't do a very good job setting up the poll, could somebody powerful please change the options such that the second differs from the third? :)

[whereagles]

3NT. Lack of controls is worrisome for 4♥.

[HeartA]

Always 3NT

ditto

[dake50]

Scattered quacks always 3NT.

[Double !]

The issue with this hand, as I see it, is two-fold:

 

1) playing imps, holding the given hand, which contract rates to be safer, more likely to make?

 

2) playing matchpoints, which contract, 3NT or 4H, is more likely to make more tricks on average?

 

dhl

[inquiry]

4!H at both.

[han]

This is very interesting, nobody thinks that the form of scoring matters, but there is no agreement about what is better.. 3NT or 4H.

[skjaeran]

When you have a long suit as a source of tricks, slow tricks are of less worth in a notrump contract, as you'll not be able to set them up and cash them. Quick tricks in the side suits is preferable.

 

So here I think 4♥ is far superior at IMP's, since the trump suit guarantees me the tempo to set up the necessary tricks in ♦'s and ♠'s. At NT, that might prove impossible. And opps might be in a position to cash 5+ ♣ tricks from the start.

 

At MP, I might try for 3NT if I was in dire need for a good score. But generally I'd go for the "safe" and normal 4♥.

[mr1303]

I think that my hand rates to be a good hand as declarer, and that involves 3NT. I can imagine there being 4 top losers in both contracts.

 

3NT isn't a command for partner to pass though is it?

[mcphee]

Not clear to me that I can make 3NT regarless of what form of scoring in use. Is it not possible you could play 3NT going down when 4H is making 5 or even 6? Axx AKJ10xx Axx x looks like a 3H bid that might make 12 tricks to me. It would be nice if I could bid 4D here on the way to 4H.

[pbleighton]

"3NT isn't a command for partner to pass though is it?"

 

No, but it implies a stiff heart.

 

Peter

[Apollo81]

4♥ either.

[Winstonm]

I see this as a fairly close decision as partner's 3H rebid should be based on a 6332 pattern - but could also be 7222 or 7321. The thing that stops me from bidding 3N is the club holding. Change the hand slightly to QJxx, Qx, KQ8, Q10xx and I would bid 3N.

 

With the hand shown, 4H at either form of scoring.

[pclayton]

Nice hand Han.

 

My reaction is 3N always. They don't always lead a club, and even then pard may have coverage.

 

Here's why I like 3N:

 

A. If pard has a semi solid heart suit, we have 6 top tricks already. We'll get one on the lead, and we'll need just a little luck for 2 more.

 

B. If pard has a broken heart suit, diamonds will likely be a good source of tricks as well, and the chance we are open in clubs is mitigated, but we could be losing 2 heart tricks in 4♥.

 

C. I don't have a ruffing value.

[bid_em_up]

"3NT isn't a command for partner to pass though is it?"

 

No, but it implies a stiff heart.

 

Peter

Just because it implies a stiff heart, doesn't mean that you actually have to have one. :)

 

I will choose 3N at either form of scoring, mainly because all of my values are slow. Change at least one of the QJQ combos into an Ace or King, and the choice becomes 4H.

[jdonn]

Not clear to me that I can make 3NT regarless of what form of scoring in use. Is it not possible you could play 3NT going down when 4H is making 5 or even 6? Axx AKJ10xx Axx x looks like a 3H bid that might make 12 tricks to me. It would be nice if I could bid 4D here on the way to 4H.

You can (4♦ is a cuebid for hearts to me, partly so 4NT directly over 3♥ can be natural) but why would you want to? Because there is one perfect hand partner can have? It's not even helping them lead that bothers me, I just think he will get to bad slams when partner assumes I have a more suitable hand.

 

I do agree with your reasoning about what to bid. 3NT is deceptively enticing with the soft cards, but I think construct lots of hands and people will see that more often than not 4♥ is where you want to be.

[gwnn]

I really hate my clubs.

 

I must be an optimist (or junior), but I have no doubt about 4♥. I have serious doubts, however, about making 3NT or even if we make it, I think 4♥ will get us more tricks (we might have only 1 club stop so no time to establish spades yada yada yada).

 

Make my club holding KQx (eliminating some other hcp from hand) and I think I bid 3NT @ MP. I'm adamant about 4♥ in IMP, though.

[dake50]

When 9 tricks is the limit, I want 3NT.

[Guest Jlall]

3N could just be a complete disaster. It's hard to construct hands where 4H goes down as opposed to hands where 3N goes down, so at imps I would definitely bid 4H. It's not hard for me to construct hands where hearts just makes 1 trick more even if both games are making, so I would also bid 4H at MP.

[inquiry]

This is very interesting, nobody thinks that the form of scoring matters, but there is no agreement about what is better.. 3NT or 4H.

4♥ is better. First it is the safer contract as I find it impossible that 10 tricks can't be made in hearts, but bad things might happen in say clubs for notrump.

 

In addition, we might lose 2♠ plus another trick in notrump, while losing just 1 spade and the other trick in spades. So there is no guaratnee that 3NT will win an extra trick either. There are hands where I would bid 3NT over raising to 4♥ at MP compared to imps. This is not one, as I said much earlier.

[mikeh]

4♥ seemed clear to me at all forms of scoring. I did a short simulation (40 deals), based on partner having 6-7♥s, no other 4+ suit, and 15-17 hcp... I am sure that there are other hands that would be bid 1♥ 3♥, but this seemed a reasonable set of constraints. I had to throw out a few hands where the opps would probably/certainly have bid. The result was closer than I would have thought, with 3N actually making on a few hands where 4♥ failed: usually on a ♠ ruff.

 

 

But there were slightly more hands on which 3N went down: a typical dummy was Kx in ♣s, with RHO winning a trick at some point to push a ♣ through.

 

This seems to confirm my immediate thought that 4♥ was the better imp bid, altho not as clearly as I had expected.

 

3N at mps was even closer. There was a significant subset where I could not be confident that the outcome was predictable: opening leader appeared to have reasonable choices, and the result depended on the lead.. in terms of overtricks, usually. On balance, where the opening lead and subsequent play seemed fairly easy to predict, 4♥ was a narrow winner.

 

So I think I would stay with my gut: 4♥. But, at mps, needing a swing, 3N looks ok.♥