Yet another matchpoint problem

[mikegill]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=s76542h5daq6ck984]133|100|Scoring: MP

1♣ p 1♠ p

1NT p 2♣ p

p X ?[/hv]

 

You choose to pull partner's 1N to 2♣. I don't care if you agree with this decision or not, you're stuck with it. Your call.

[whereagles]

Now 2♠. It is important to shut out the hearts.

[MickyB]

Yup, looks clear. I'm quite happy they protected, should mean we find the right strain.

[Guest Jlall]

I would XX, expect it to go 2H X p p p and they go down a million.

[Apollo81]

I'd pass, not having interest in competing and expecting them to have a decent shot to make 2♥X.

 

Good problem.

[keylime]

I'm liking pass here slightly over redouble - the redouble might steer them into another strain. That, and if I bid 2♠ I get my just desserts doubled.

[whereagles]

I would XX, expect it to go 2H X p p p and they go down a million.

huh? they have at least an 8 card fit and can easily have more.

[Apollo81]

I would XX, expect it to go 2H X p p p and they go down a million.

huh? they have at least an 8 card fit and can easily have more.

I doubt partner will double if they have a 9-card or better fit.

[Guest Jlall]

I would XX, expect it to go 2H X p p p and they go down a million.

huh? they have at least an 8 card fit and can easily have more.

You have more than half the deck, they have at most 8 trumps when partner doubles them, and trumps aren't breaking well for them. Your diamond honors are located behind RHOs diamond length. I see no reason to think they will make if partner doubles them. Additionally you are playing MP and were almost surely cold for a partscore, so you have added reason to be doubling them.

 

Additionally XX will encourage partner to bid 2S or 3C sometimes when he wouldn't have otherwise because he knows we have values.

[whereagles]

I doubt pard will bid 2S if he thinks you might only have 4 of them... but ok.

[pclayton]

Redouble makes sense. This hand is very defensive. RHO couldn't come in over 1♣ and now decides to balance?

 

2♠ is vile on this suit. Its likely you are on a 5-2 or possibly even a 5-1 here.

 

3♣ is probably my second choice above a pass.

[MickyB]

2♠ is vile on this suit. Its likely you are on a 5-2 or possibly even a 5-1 here.

You didn't bid 2♠ over 1NT - surely partner will correct to 3♣ on any hand with a stiff spade? Some with a doubleton, too (2=3=3=5).

 

Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I don't think we are favourites to take 2♥ two off, and I don't think +100 out of 2♥ would be a great score.

[Apollo81]

I don't think +100 out of 2♥ would be a great score.

If we are setting it we should still double it if we're not going to compete.

[MickyB]

I don't think +100 out of 2♥ would be a great score.

If we are setting it we should still double it if we're not going to compete.

Of course...but I am going to compete. That statement is justifying competing :)

[kenrexford]

Redouble.

 

One additional reason is that I have potentially way underbid this hand. If partner cannot double 2♥, I'm afraid that we might even have 5♣ coming in.

 

I mean, in support of clubs, this hand is huge. I have what now appear to be three honor covers (the diamond situation seems to now not be wasted concentration but working finesse), plus well-placed shortness. A spade finesse, if needed, looks to be working.

 

Give partner ♠AK ♦xxx ♥xxx ♣AQxxx, and 5♣ looks decent.

[jdonn]

I can't make up my mind :) I'm really not high on redouble, 2♠, or 3♣, but I don't like passing either. I guess I'll bid 2♠, who knows they might even compete to 3♥. I hate to redouble and just get 100 when we had 110 available.

 

I like this problem, it's an everyday sort of situation but still seems to be a very close call between at least three choices.

[pclayton]

2♠ is vile on this suit. Its likely you are on a 5-2 or possibly even a 5-1 here.

You didn't bid 2♠ over 1NT - surely partner will correct to 3♣ on any hand with a stiff spade? Some with a doubleton, too (2=3=3=5).

 

Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I don't think we are favourites to take 2♥ two off, and I don't think +100 out of 2♥ would be a great score.

Don't agree. Its MPs so why would we subject ourselves to a 5-2 even on a decent suit?

 

Hopefully this pard likes to raise directly on 3 pieces.

 

If we get to a spade fit, I think its pard that should be bidding spades now, not us.

[pclayton]

Give partner ♠AK ♦xxx ♥xxx ♣AQxxx, and 5♣ looks decent.

If thats its hand, we'll at least compete to 3♣ after a xx as pard won't be doubling 2♥.

 

The 2♠ bidders will play 2♠ which isn't that bad a spot but I'd rather be in clubs.

 

If we pass, I suppose pard will still bid 3 clubs.

[whereagles]

2♠ is vile on this suit. Its likely you are on a 5-2 or possibly even a 5-1 here.

Only if you play american style, where 1NT might be a 1345 "unfit for rebidding clubs".

[MickyB]

2♠ is vile on this suit. Its likely you are on a 5-2 or possibly even a 5-1 here.

You didn't bid 2♠ over 1NT - surely partner will correct to 3♣ on any hand with a stiff spade? Some with a doubleton, too (2=3=3=5).

 

Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I don't think we are favourites to take 2♥ two off, and I don't think +100 out of 2♥ would be a great score.

Don't agree. Its MPs so why would we subject ourselves to a 5-2 even on a decent suit?

 

Hopefully this pard likes to raise directly on 3 pieces.

 

If we get to a spade fit, I think its pard that should be bidding spades now, not us.

It's playing MPs that you do often want to be in 2M on seven-card fits...frequently there will be a trick more than in 1NT. Admittedly that's not that relevant here, where +140 in a 5-2 spade fit seems unlikely.

 

Given that pard is likely to have four hearts, I can't see him showing delayed three-card support for spades when they attempt to play there.

[MickyB]

Give partner ♠AK ♦xxx ♥xxx ♣AQxxx, and 5♣ looks decent.

If thats its hand, we'll at least compete to 3♣ after a xx as pard won't be doubling 2♥.

 

The 2♠ bidders will play 2♠ which isn't that bad a spot but I'd rather be in clubs.

Only if they find a way to bar partner before they bid 2♠.

[jdonn]

2♠ is vile on this suit. Its likely you are on a 5-2 or possibly even a 5-1 here.

Only if you play american style, where 1NT might be a 1345 "unfit for rebidding clubs".

What's the difference, we already supported clubs so partner will never pass 2♠ with a singleton.

 

1345 is automatically unfit for rebidding clubs :) That's the style that will really get you to 5-1 fits.

[whereagles]

What's the difference, we already supported clubs so partner will never pass 2♠ with a singleton.

true, true..

[skjaeran]

Interesting everyday hand.

I redouble, but this is very close.

[mikeh]

I redouble.

 

Several ways to win and only one way to lose.

 

The alternatives:

 

Pass: clearly awful, since partner is virtually forced to pass their inevitable 2♥ and now I am guessing

 

2♠: ok in a sense: better than passing, but this hand won't play well in spades opposite Qx and a likely 4-2 break

 

3♣: why should I assume partner has long clubs? If I do this, I deserve to find Kxx AQ10x Kxx xxx opposite.

 

Redouble is 'wrong' only when partner doubles 2♥ and it makes (or goes for 100 when we have 110).

 

In the meantime, redouble will get partner bidding 2♠ on 3 when he can stand 3♣ or 3♣ directly with a 5 card suit. It will also get him doubling when it is right to do so: Ax KJ10x xxx AJxx is a typical double and we rate to do well. Heck: Axx KJ10x J10x AJx.... yes, I am dreaming, but maybe rho is Kx Axxx Kxxx xxx... this shows how wrong any call than redouble is at mps.