Matchpoints, Oh Matchpoints

[Guest Jlall]

xxxx KQx Axx Kxx

 

w/w

 

1C by you, p 1S by pard, 3H p p X p ?

[rogerclee]

Pass?

[Fluffy]

3♠

[655321]

I think I like 3♠.

 

Pass, 3♠ and 3NT all have their attractions.

3♠ tells partner about the fit (such as it is!).

3NT will often not have 9 tricks - we need a lot of help from partner.

3♥X may go 1 down for 100, not so good if we can make 140, but not so bad if we can't.

 

At least bidding 3♠ puts us in contention for 140 or 420, in return for losing the chances of 300 or 500.

[P_Marlowe]

3♠

Hi,

 

ok, ... but why did you pass 3H

the round before?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gwnn]

3♠ don't we have a 9 card spade fit? :)

[rogerclee]

3♠ don't we have a 9 card spade fit?  :)

Why do we have a 9-card spade fit? What would partner bid on opening hands with 4144, 4243, or 4234 shape?

 

Hi,

 

ok, ... but why did you pass 3H

the round before?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

I think bidding 3♠ the previous round is pretty horrible. I have a hand which is almost entirely defensive with every expectation of beating 3♥ and no expectation of making 3♠ opposite a random 8-count with 4 spades.

[paulg]

3♠ has little appeal, at least pass and 3NT have considerable upside when they are right.

 

My hand looks all defence, so I'll pass and hope for +300 against partscore and +500 against game.

 

Paul

[helene_t]

3♠. If this is wrong I'll just say that I hate matchpoints (which isn't true btw).

[whereagles]

I dont understand the auction, but, since this was dbled, I think I pass :)

[Guest Jlall]

People really have a problem with passing 3H the first time? WOW.

[gwnn]

Why do we have a 9-card spade fit? What would partner bid on opening hands with 4144, 4243, or 4234 shape?

I meant to say "don't we rate to have a 9 card spade fit?". sorry

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

ok, ... but why did you pass 3H

the round before?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

I think bidding 3♠ the previous round is pretty horrible. I have a hand which is almost entirely defensive with every expectation of beating 3♥ and no expectation of making 3♠ opposite a random 8-count with 4 spades.

Hi,

 

I did not suggest bidding 3S the round

before, pass is fairly obvious, I only tried

to say that bidding 3S now, is inconsistent

with my action the round before.

 

Now, I would pass again, the reasons,

why I passed instead of bidding 3S

are still valid, you may prefer 3NT now

over pass, which would be fine me as well,

... because you now have the add. info that

partner showed some add. live, but in my

opinion bidding 3S now is just inconsistent.

 

I have made my decision, and I will see

how it works out.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

I don't agree with this, I think pass followed by 3♠ is the right way of showing a hand that would like to bid 3♠ immediately but was too weak. Something like a 3-1-4-5 (assuming that shape is a 1♣ opening in our style) would be more typical, though.

 

OTOH if this hand is too weak for an immediate 3♠ maybe it would be better not to open it. In fact I would not have opened this hand.

[Guest Jlall]

P_Marlowe and helene_t: are you 2 implying that hands with 4 spades are always supposed to bid 3S in this auction?

 

It seems like P_Marlowe is implying that we passed 3H because we were planning on not raising spades ever, rather than the (to me) more obvious reason that we passed 3H because our hand was not good enough to bid 3S. You don't think there exists a hand with 4 spades that cannot bid 3S directly, and if we choose to pass with 4 spades we're trying to defend 3H X?

 

It seems like helene_t is implying that a hand with 4 spades that cannot bid 3S here is not an opening bid.

 

I don't understand why normal minimum balanced hands are not routinely passing 3H. If partner cannot bid you're not missing anything. You shouldn't be forced to drive to 3S opposite a 1 level response with a weak NT hand type and only a known 8 card fit. What is partner going to do with some hand like KQTx xx Axxx Jxx? To me this is an obvious game if partner raises me directly to 3S. After all I would expect partner to bid 3S on 14 with a stiff and other various strong hands. It seems to me like logically you must have at least a reasonable hand to bid 3S here, otherwise you could just be in the stratosphere with no protection and if you CAN make 3S partner is going to bid 4S. We shouldn't be forced to automatically raise just because they preempted; partner is still alive.

 

It didn't even cross my mind to bid 3S directly, or that anyone would want to. I did know that some people would object to opening, but hopefully those who do know they are in a big minority to pass with KQ A K and can live with it.

[Halo]

I think at Pairs this auction has gone quite well from my perspective, giving me a chance to make a good score by passing. My cards look well placed.

[helene_t]

P_Marlowe and helene_t: are you 2 implying that hands with 4 spades are always supposed to bid 3S in this auction?

Almost, though I would make an exception for hands like this one because either p has a singleton ♥ (so my values are vasted) or LHO has so they are, well, wasted as well. Ultimately I suppose the decision should be made on the basis of offensive values with some reduction for defensive strnegth, say O-0.5D, it's just that it is easier to count spades than to make a more subtle O and O-D estimation.

 

Would you raise with something like Qxxx-xx-KQx-AQxx or Qxxx-Axx-KQx-Qxxx?

[MFA]

I will rate it

 

3NT > pass > 3♠.

 

But I'm far from convinced. This could be a MSC problem.

 

If partner has a chunky 5card spade suit, taking the defense rates to be wrong. So I'm not going to gamble on that.

Between 3♠ and 3NT, 3NT rates to be right if partner has significant extras, if we have good control over all suit, if it's a "same tricks" board or if a heart ruff will hurt us. I'll try this.

 

Passing 3♥ was clearcut.

[Apollo81]

I think I would gamble out 3NT. I have 2 heart stoppers and any spade cards will likely be onside. Looks like a hand where we can make with less than typical game values. I don't think we're taking 3♥ for 500.

[pclayton]

I think I would gamble out 3NT. I have 2 heart stoppers and any spade cards will likely be onside. Looks like a hand where we can make with less than typical game values

At last a ray of sensibility here. 3N has the right amount of aggression, unlike a pass and 3♠. FWIW, I like 3N at IMPs too.

[han]

My first choice was 3NT, second pass, third 3S, which has little going for it.

[Halo]

I would like to see this hand. A lot of good players are going for 3NT when I'd expect to be two off opposite a reasonable double from partner, with +500 on against three hearts.

 

I need some evidence to change my evaluation.

[Fluffy]

I think I remember reading something about using support double with minimum 4 card support on this bidding

[helene_t]

I think I remember reading something about using support double with minimum 4 card support on this bidding

I have a vague idea that Roland Wald recomended that. However I think it's too specific, you would need dbl for other types of hands IMHO, such as an 18-19 (semi)balanced without a stopper in opps' suit.

[brianshark]

The bidding thus far seems... normal. I believe defending 3♥x is the best call. I'm eager to see the actual deal.