Compete or give up ?

[sathyab]

[hv=d=w&v=e&s=saqt632ht3da654c2]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Bidding goes:

 

 

W N E S

 

p p 1d 1s

 

2d 2h 3d ?

 

 

Pass, Double and 3s all seem to have some appeal.

[pclayton]

This is a curious hand. Pard is a passed hand, and doesn't have great spade support, and is short in diamonds. Pard didn't open with a weak 2, but didn't make a responsive double either.

 

Therefore, I am putting pard on some kind of 2=5=1=5 with great hearts and crappy clubs. xx, AKJxx, x, xxxxx.

 

Across from this hand type, double has a lot of appeal. I'll lead my stiff, get pard in with a heart, get a ruff or two, and might even get two spade tricks in the wash. 500 seems likely and even 800 is possible.

[Guest Jlall]

wow they're vul and it's matchpoints. I would smack this off and go for 200. They could make but we're certainly a pretty strong favorite to beat them.

 

I would have overcalled 2S white/red opposite a passed hand.

 

edit: I'm not as optimistic as Phil though ;)

[Apollo81]

Put me down for double also cause of the conditions.

[pclayton]

wow they're vul and it's matchpoints. I would smack this off and go for 200. They could make but we're certainly a pretty strong favorite to beat them.

 

I would have overcalled 2S white/red opposite a passed hand.

 

edit: I'm not as optimistic as Phil though :)

I'll gladly settle for +200 out of court before the opening lead is made. ;)

[whereagles]

3♠. I could almost bet pard has support...

[gwnn]

I'm being a wussie and 3♠'ing (who knows they might "take the push" :lol: ). At the table I might X though.

[jdonn]

I was leaning toward 3♠ at first, but the other posts have talked me into double.

[pbleighton]

Double, because it's matchpoints and they are vulnerable.

 

Peter

[skjaeran]

I'd be very surprised if partner didn't have good support here. No weak 2♥, no responsive double, etc. So 2♥ should be a fnj.

 

I'd bid 4♠ at any form of scoring.

[mike777]

double I got 4 trumps and partner has hearts, yes?

 

Prefer 2 spades rather than one spade as partner is a passed hand.

[jdonn]

I'd be very surprised if partner didn't have good support here. No weak 2♥, no responsive double, etc. So 2♥ should be a fnj.

Sigh, I can't take this discussion again!!!

 

Suffice to say that if it promised a fit in the given partnership, the problem wouldn't be here.

[bid_em_up]

I'd be very surprised if partner didn't have good support here. No weak 2♥, no responsive double, etc. So 2♥ should be a fnj.

Sigh, I can't take this discussion again!!!

 

Suffice to say that if it promised a fit in the given partnership, the problem wouldn't be here.

Not only that, but even if 2H does not promise a fit (it may or may not have one), the double at least lets him know we are willing to defend and reevaluate his hand for defensive purposes.

 

Partner will usually pull with an undisclosed fit and we can then bid game, otherwise we take our likely plus on defense.

[the hog]

xx, AKJxx, x, xxxxx.

 

Isn't this a weak 2H opening? Put me in with the fnj brigade. Opposite a S fit and ok hearts this is worth a 4S bid.

Double would be penalties. Could well be a double swing.

[dake50]

4S.

2H not fnj, but what sane partner has no 2H/1H opener, yet now 2H misfitting spades? Lead direct void? SKx HAQxxx looks about right.

[mr1303]

CLoser to 4S than any of the others, and definitely 2H should be a FNJ. Opposite xxx AKxxx x xxxx or similar, I expect this to make an overtrick more often than not.

[1eyedjack]

Opponents can see the vulnerability and scoring conditions as well as we can. I am not so confident about the double. I went for 3♠.

[Halo]

I went for 3♠ because my trumps are poor and I think partner has some fit with me.

 

Several people have mentioned that they would have overcalled 2♠. This is, I think, the dilemma: our methods have left us out of step with the room. Now we can either optimistically assume we have been given an opportunity to double that other NS didn't get, or we can assume that we are near game in spades. Maybe wrongly I prefer to play rather than defend.

[Edmunte1]

1. For me 2♥ is not a fnj. And i wouldn't double with 5♥ and 2♠. 2♥ says i have decent+ 5 hearts, a goodish passing hand, and probably i resist 2♠. Probably a 2♥ muiderberg opening wasn't systemic.

2. I like 1♠ at this vulnerabilities. The hand has a good offensive potential, so game can be still on if we find ♠ fit

3. What should i do? I'll definitely not pass, scoring +100 when +110/+140/+170 is almost certain won't get me good marks. My choice is between 3♠ and double, and this time, due to the purity of the hand and doubleton ♥ i'll choose 3♠

[whereagles]

2♥ as FNJ does make sense but I wouldn't take it as such without previous discussion.

[sathyab]

I think overcalling 2s with that hand is understating its defensive potential grossly. You'd overcall 2s with KQTxxx xx Jxx xx, wouldn't you ? Between that hand and AQT632 Tx Axxx x there's a huge difference. Yes, partner has passed, so chances of game are remote, but it being MP, partner may still have a role in deciding what to do if a part-score battle ensues. Say he had xx Axxxx x Kxxxx and opponents competed to 3d, he'd have a tough time bidding 3s with this hand.

 

As for the choices between 3d and 3s, given that you have shortness in suits where partner is likley to have values, his tricks better be quick or it'll be tough to make use of them in offense. To put it another way, most hands that allow 3s to make would also beat 3d. But there're some hands where 3s will play for 8 tricks where there's no defense against 3d. If that's the reason why the 3s voters chose 3s, I'd agree with you. But if you chose 3s expecting it to make, I'd disagree.

 

Anyway here's the hand. The Godess of Bridge had a cruel sense of humor when she dealt you this one.

 

[hv=d=w&v=e&n=sk7hj6542dt7cq543&w=s984hkq8dq32ca976&e=sj5ha97dkj98ckjt8&s=saqt632ht3da654c2]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

All those who doubled and led a club, better defend this carefully to hold it to 9 tricks. Declarer wins the first trick in his hand as he tops your partner's Q and leads a trump and another. If you win the second trump, you better guess well to lead a spade and get your club ruff or you'll concede 870 :(

 

Your LHO was forced to underbid his hand with a 2d bid, over which partner climbed in with a questionable 2h bid. If he passes instead, you can compete to 2s, over which most likely LHO will X showing a maximum for his bid and they will reach 3c or 3d which you defend quietly. And if you led a passive heart vs 3m, declarer has to play it carefully for his contract.

 

If you bid 3s, your LHO's X card and the 4 of spades will probably hit the table simultaneously.

 

BTW, if your partner had xx Axxxx x Kxxxx, a trump lead would make 3s quite tough while beating 3d should be reasonably easy whenever either of the black kings is well placed.

[jdonn]

Your LHO was forced to underbid his hand with a 2d bid, over which partner climbed in with a questionable 2h bid.

Lol, I think the bidders and doublers alike will agree never to play with this partner again. Using the word "questionable" is the underbid of the year. Suicidal, pointless, idiotic, and non-bridge-like come closer to the mark.

[pclayton]

Sathya: I strongly object to the 2♥ call and think a responsive double is a much better call. The result is not suprising after this aberration.

[Guest Jlall]

2H...lol.

[skjaeran]

I'd be very surprised if partner didn't have good support here. No weak 2♥, no responsive double, etc. So 2♥ should be a fnj.

Sigh, I can't take this discussion again!!!

 

Suffice to say that if it promised a fit in the given partnership, the problem wouldn't be here.

Come off it Josh!

The post said nothing whatsoever about 2-level openings or other agreements.

Anyway, one has to reason logically to infer what partner might have, lacking agreements. At least a couple of logical alternatives are presented by posters. If you don't like such discussions, why not just skip the thread?