Bidding problem

[Foxx]

This hand came up on Vugraph recently, and none of the commentators could come up with a satisfactory solution. Indeed, as I see it, this problem could be considered worthy of the Master Solvers Club.

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sa3hakq108d832ca64]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 [space]W [space] [space] N [space] [space] E [space] [space] S

[space] [space] [space] 1[di] [space]- Pass - 1[he]
3[sp] - Pass - Pass - ??

 

You play an ordinary, simple 2/1 system.

[Free]

I like Dbl...

[mike777]

Double.

 

The usual MSC solution bid. :)

[pclayton]

Double.

 

The usual MSC solution bid. :)

Yeah, double and cue bids guarantee you at least an 80 :)

 

Could 4N be natural? If so I like it. Otherwise, I'm a little torn between 3N and x.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I would say, it is simple, either make an

optional X, or bid 3NT, I would say, it depends

on the quality of the 3S overcalls, if the guy

is known to be agressive pass, else bid 3NT.

 

Most likely X is best, because, you may get

another chance to speak, after 3NT you wont.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[whereagles]

sounds like a normal three no trumps bid ^^

[scoob]

3NT for me

[Apollo81]

I would bid 3NT, a contract I expect to make.

[hrothgar]

I agree with the "panel". I am torn between X and 3NT.

 

At the table, I expect that I would bid 3N

[Cascade]

I would bid 3NT, a contract I expect to make.

If I double and partner bids 3NT then I would expect to make.

 

If I bid 3NT here then I would hope to make but I think it is far from certain - hearts might not run, partner might not furnish quick tricks.

 

And bidding 3NT makes it hard to get to 4♥.

 

I would double and see what eventuates.

[Echognome]

I'm also doubling. So we probably won't get to 3NT. Wtp?

 

If we bid 3NT, we're probably not getting to slam when it's right. Our hand is prime and can certainly play well in diamonds or in hearts. Flexibility means we're doubling.

[foo]

This hand came up on Vugraph recently, and none of the commentators could come up with a satisfactory solution.  Indeed, as I see it, this problem could be considered worthy of the Master Solvers Club.

 

North,N/S,IMP,

 

♠A3♥AKQT8♦832♣A64

 

N Opens

1♦-pa- 1♥-(3♠);

pa-pa-??

 

You play an ordinary, simple 2/1 system.

This is IMPs @ Unfavorable.

 

We have at least 12+17= 29 HCP between Us.

 

In order to beat Our >= 600 in 3N, We have to set 3♠X at least 4 tricks for 800.

IOW, we have to take 8 tricks vs 3♠X.

 

If pd had a big enough hand that slam was a reasonable possibility, does anyone really think it logical that they would pass an obvious WJO in a situation were We have !not! established a Forcing Pass?

Therefore, pd's hand is probably not that good...

 

Our hand does not have much defense vs 3♠X. pd isn't showing much in that regard either.

 

Given our hand and pd's 1♦ Opening, I think it's more likely that We will take 9 tricks in 3N than 8 tricks vs 3♠X. And the risk/reward ratio these colors playing IMPs gives even more reason to prefer Play vs Defend.

This is not an easy decision, but I think the logic and math supports

 

3N as my bid.

[mcphee]

Looks like dble is a winner to me. It is true we will miss a good 3N , but maybe we'll find a good D slam even.

[jdonn]

The longer I think about it this hand is waaaaaaaay too good for 3NT. If partner holds AQJxxx of diamonds and the heart jack, that alone is usually enough to make 7NT here, of course I'm not saying we would bid a grand slam but just to show the power of our hand. Alternatively it could be a hand where slam makes in a suit but 3NT goes down, like Qx x KQJxxx KQxx or something. I will double, if partner passes (unlikely) we should slaughter them, if he reopens with any suit I will probably bid 4♠ next and hope he isn't some ill fitting minimum.

[kenrexford]

4♣.

[P_Marlowe]

This hand came up on Vugraph recently, and none of the commentators could come up with a satisfactory solution.  Indeed, as I see it, this problem could be considered worthy of the Master Solvers Club.

 

North,N/S,IMP,

 

♠A3♥AKQT8♦832♣A64

 

N Opens

1♦-pa- 1♥-(3♠);

pa-pa-??

 

You play an ordinary, simple 2/1 system.

This is IMPs @ Unfavorable.

 

We have at least 12+17= 29 HCP between Us.

 

In order to beat Our >= 600 in 3N, We have to set 3♠X at least 4 tricks for 800.

IOW, we have to take 8 tricks vs 3♠X.

<snip>

True, but only 50% of the truth.

If you beat them "only" -3, the IMP lose is minimal,

depends on the length of the match, 500 instead of 600

is not the end of the world playing IMP's.

3NT may or may not make, surely we expect 3NT to

make most of the time, but not always, but if you play

3SX, you will go plus.

 

In other words if you make arguments based on

a percentage anylsis, please include also 3NT-X,

and +300 or +500 beats -50 or -100 by a fair IMP

margin.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: most likely I bid 3NT, but I am also convinced, that

X is probably the better bid.

[Guest Jlall]

No offense but I would have thought this is the most obvious X ever. 3N is way too committal on both strain and level.

[paulg]

I think double is clear too so unworthy of the MSC (need 3 options) but certainly a nasty hand.

 

It's unclear how to continue after partner's 4♣/4♦. Josh's 4♠ is getting us very high with no agreed fit so perhaps we need a natural 4NT at that point .. certainly testing our agreements!

[Fluffy]

double and 3NT are appealing, I would bid 3NT if I was weaker (no club ace for example). now I'll try a double.

[Finch]

I was commentating on this hand at the time, and I thought double was obvious, with a second choice a natural 4NT (but I wanted a second spade stop for that).

 

Sadly the player at the table (a better player than 99.9% of the posters here) disagreed.

 

Happily double has more chance of being successful than 3NT.

[pbleighton]

3NT and double are very close, but when in doubt I bid 3NT.

 

Peter

[Apollo81]

the likely bad breaks on this hand make 3NT a lot more appealing to me than playing in a suit (diamonds at least)

 

lets have the actual deal

[han]

I also think double is clear.

 

By the way, given that there are far fewer than 1000 posters here a player that is better than 99.9% must be better than all.

[Fluffy]

By the way, given that there are far fewer than 1000 posters here a player that is better than 99.9% must be better than all.

He is better than anyone most of the time, but what if he is hungry or sleepy?, when you put state of the posters into the ecuation there are zounds of posters out there :)

[foo]

What are people planning to use as trump tricks vs 3♠X?

 

Presumably the WJO'er is not suicidal nor stupid. Bidding in a misfit auction between 2 bidding opponents and opposite a passed pd should mean they have at the least a very nice trump suit. Maybe they are even a card longer than normal as extra insurance. 8(221) w/ ♠KQJxxxxx and no other values means We are only taking this for -300 (and 3N rates to be a cakewalk).

One more loser than that means We are only taking 3♠X for -500 (and 3N still rates to be easy).

 

Sure We presumably have ~29 HCP between Us (assuming pd did not open a light 1♦; say a 6- loser < 12 count w/ say 6+♦'s.), but pd has neither

a= shown ♥ support nor

b= shown ♠ values nor

c= shown a big hand or 5- loser hand.

 

I certainly agree that taking 8 tricks is easier than taking 9, and if I was on lead and could guarantee A of trumps, then trump as the 1st 2 tricks I'd be a lot more sanguine about defending 3♠X.

 

At MPs, It's clear to play the odds and X.

At IMPs, the scoring table gives Us another consideration.

 

If we bid game and are wrong, it's less of a swing than if We defend 3♠X and are wrong.

 

 

Given the consensus and the DD commentary from one of our resident experts watching on vuegraph, it appears the correct decision on this board is to X and hope pd leaves it in. Still, I'm not sure that's the proper SD decision under these circumstances.