Two matchpoint decisions

[Ant590]

Both times you are sitting north playing 'standard' club bridge players...

5cM, weak NT, not 2/1

 

1)

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sj4h8dt52cakt9863]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

(1♥) - dbl - (4♥) - ?

 

2)

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sj4h8dt52cakt9863]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

1♥ - (pass) - 2♣ - (pass)

3♥ - (pass) - ?

[jdonn]

1. 5♣ is not guaranteed to work, but isn't it really obvious?

2. This depends largely on agreements. If 3♥ sets trumps and doesn't show extras I'll bid 4♥, if it sets trumps and does show extras I'll bid 4♣, if it doesn't set trumps I'll bid 3NT.

[ArtK78]

1) I don't know if 5♣ is so obvious. 6♣ could be the winning action. Partner could have a hand with a lot of controls and very mediocre clubs and we could easily have 12 tricks. He will not move over 5♣ holding:

 

AKxx

Ax

AKxx

xxx

 

or

 

AKQx

xx

Axxx

xxx

 

or any similar hand where I have 7 club tricks and he has 5 tricks.

 

Even:

 

AKQx

xxx

Axx

xxx

 

a hand on which he might overcall 1♠ rather than double, is good enough to produce 12 tricks.

 

So I am not convinced that 5♣ is obvious. Even 7♣ or 7NT might be the winning action and it is quite possible that partner will have a headache over your 5♣ bid. Give him:

 

AKQx

Ax

Axxx

xxx

 

Wouldn't you be bidding 5♣ if you held:

 

xx

xx

KQx

QJTxxx?

 

2) Agree with Jdonn. Your action depends on the partnership agreement concerning the 3♥ call.

[rogerclee]

1) I don't know if 5♣ is so obvious.  6♣ could be the winning action.  Partner could have a hand with a lot of controls and very mediocre clubs and we could easily have 12 tricks.  He will not move over 5♣ holding:

 

AKxx

Ax

AKxx

xxx

 

or

 

AKQx

xx

Axxx

xxx

 

or any similar hand where I have 7 club tricks and he has 5 tricks.

 

Even:

 

AKQx

xxx

Axx

xxx

 

a hand on which he might overcall 1♠ rather than double, is good enough to produce 12 tricks.

 

So I am not convinced that 5♣ is obvious.  Even 7♣ or 7NT might be the winning action and it is quite possible that partner will have a headache over your 5♣ bid.  Give him:

 

AKQx

Ax

Axxx

xxx

 

Wouldn't you be bidding 5♣ if you held:

 

xx

xx

KQx

QJTxxx?

 

2)  Agree with Jdonn.  Your action depends on the partnership agreement concerning the 3♥ call.

Art, this is an egregious abuse of using example hands.

[ArtK78]

I have a permit to use example hands.

[mikeh]

1) I don't know if 5♣ is so obvious.  6♣ could be the winning action.  Partner could have a hand with a lot of controls and very mediocre clubs and we could easily have 12 tricks.  He will not move over 5♣ holding:

 

AKxx

Ax

AKxx

xxx

 

or

 

AKQx

xx

Axxx

xxx

 

or any similar hand where I have 7 club tricks and he has 5 tricks.

 

Even:

 

AKQx

xxx

Axx

xxx

 

a hand on which he might overcall 1♠ rather than double, is good enough to produce 12 tricks.

 

So I am not convinced that 5♣ is obvious.  Even 7♣ or 7NT might be the winning action and it is quite possible that partner will have a headache over your 5♣ bid.  Give him:

 

AKQx

Ax

Axxx

xxx

 

Wouldn't you be bidding 5♣ if you held:

 

xx

xx

KQx

QJTxxx?

 

2)  Agree with Jdonn.  Your action depends on the partnership agreement concerning the 3♥ call.

Your permit for using example hands is in jeopardy of being revoked for reckless abuse.

 

You want an example hand? KQxx x KQxx QJxx... your call after a 1♥ opening bid on your left. Edit: on your right :rolleyes:

 

How'd you like 6♣ now?

 

My 5♣ will go down, but it won't be doubled.

 

As it is, 5♣ is obvious... and, yes, it may not result in the optimum contract. What's your point?

 

As for the 2nd hand, I agree with josh

[jdonn]

I have a permit to use example hands.

You have merely proved we need stricter example hand control laws. AKxx Ax AKxx xxx??? Shows what I know, I thought the knock on 5♣ was it might go down! Seriously, your post is one of the most ridiculous I have seen in quite a while.

[TimG]

You want an example hand? KQxx x KQxx QJxx... your call after a 1♥ opening bid on your left.

Can I wait to find out what partner and RHO do before deciding on my call?

[rogerclee]

You want an example hand? KQxx x KQxx QJxx... your call after a 1♥ opening bid on your left.

Can I wait to find out what partner and RHO do before deciding on my call?

OK, YOU WIN.

[mikeh]

You want an example hand? KQxx x KQxx QJxx... your call after a 1♥ opening bid on your left.

Can I wait to find out what partner and RHO do before deciding on my call?

This proves that at least one person reads my posts :rolleyes:

[sathyab]

2. This depends largely on agreements. If 3♥ sets trumps and doesn't show extras I'll bid 4♥, if it sets trumps and does show extras I'll bid 4♣, if it doesn't set trumps I'll bid 3NT.

Anyone know what the "standard" 2/1 agreement is, assuming that there's such a thing as standard 2/1, you know the kind when you say "2/1, UDCA, A from AK and 3/5 vs suits pd?".

 

Andrew Tannenbaum, in one of his books on Computer Networking said "The great thing about standards is that here are so many to choose from". Sounds like a bridge player to me.

[OleBerg]

1. 5♣ is not guaranteed to work, but isn't it really obvious?

2. This depends largely on agreements. If 3♥ sets trumps and doesn't show extras I'll bid 4♥, if it sets trumps and does show extras I'll bid 4♣, if it doesn't set trumps I'll bid 3NT.

I hate those "I definately agree"-posts.

 

This however really sums it all up. So:

 

I definately agree.

[rogerclee]

Anyone know what the "standard" 2/1 agreement is, assuming that there's such a thing as standard 2/1, you know the kind when you say "2/1, UDCA, A from AK and 3/5 vs suits pd?".

Around these parts, it sets trumps and shows extras.

[OleBerg]

2. This depends largely on agreements. If 3♥ sets trumps and doesn't show extras I'll bid 4♥, if it sets trumps and does show extras I'll bid 4♣, if it doesn't set trumps I'll bid 3NT.

Anyone know what the "standard" 2/1 agreement is, assuming that there's such a thing as standard 2/1, you know the kind when you say "2/1, UDCA, A from AK and 3/5 vs suits pd?".

 

Andrew Tannenbaum, in one of his books on Computer Networking said "The great thing about standards is that here are so many to choose from". Sounds like a bridge player to me.

I have double-standards. Twice as good!

[ArtK78]

I have a permit to use example hands.

You have merely proved we need stricter example hand control laws. AKxx Ax AKxx xxx??? Shows what I know, I thought the knock on 5♣ was it might go down! Seriously, your post is one of the most ridiculous I have seen in quite a while.

I am so glad I could provide you with some entertainment.

 

It just goes to show what kind of variance is at play in this problem. Depending on partner's takeout double, you could make anywhere from 9 to 13 tricks in clubs.

 

Clearly, bidding clubs is obvious. Bidding 5♣ is certainly reasonable, and it is probably the percentage call. But I am not convinced that bidding 5♣ specifically is obvious.

[Lobowolf]

1. 5♣ is not guaranteed to work, but isn't it really obvious?

2. This depends largely on agreements. If 3♥ sets trumps and doesn't show extras I'll bid 4♥, if it sets trumps and does show extras I'll bid 4♣, if it doesn't set trumps I'll bid 3NT.

I hate those "I definately agree"-posts.

 

This however really sums it all up. So:

 

I definately agree.

Lest Josh think I'm deliberately contrary and argumentative, I agree with this (these) post(s) in its (their) entirety. Except for the part about being averse to "I agree" posts.

[cherdano]

Bidding 5♣ is specifically obvious. Making 6♣ is possible, but clearly against the odds (and obviously so). Even if that wasn't obvious to begin with, it should convince you that your example hands (for a one-level takeout double) contained 8 controls or the magic ace PLUS the magic AKQ.

[matmat]

I have a permit to use example hands.

that permit may need to be revoked. who do we contact about this?

 

I partially agree though, I never make a takeout double of 1♥ in second seat unless i have 3 aces and 5 kings.

[matmat]

Clearly, bidding clubs is obvious.  Bidding 5♣ is certainly reasonable, and it is probably the percentage call.  But I am not convinced that bidding 5♣ specifically is obvious.

matchpoints

in the long run you are rewarded for taking percentage actions

if you agree that 5♣ is the percentage call, then it is the OBVIOUS call.

[kenrexford]

I'd bid 4NT, which obviously asks partner to bid 7♣ if he has an above-average hand, which I define as all three side Aces, two Kings, three clubs, and the Jack of diamonds. If he has a lesser hand, like missing the diamond Jack, he'll sign off at 6♣. With less than that, he should not even double, so 5♣ shows an "impossible negative" and asks me to consider 7NT if I have the diamond Queen. :rolleyes:

 

Nah!

 

5♣ -- hope I'm not down too many and/or that it is not phantom.

[sathyab]

Clearly, bidding clubs is obvious.  Bidding 5♣ is certainly reasonable, and it is probably the percentage call.  But I am not convinced that bidding 5♣ specifically is obvious.

matchpoints

in the long run you are rewarded for taking percentage actions

if you agree that 5♣ is the percentage call, then it is the OBVIOUS call.

Let's say it was IMPs instead of MP. What then ? Partner's T/O doubles will have better support for unbid suits than at MP where support for minors may be suspect. You're still not off the hook by any means in deciding whether to bid just 5♣ or contemplate something higher .

[Finch]

Bidding 5♣ is specifically obvious. Making 6♣ is possible, but clearly against the odds (and obviously so). Even if that wasn't obvious to begin with, it should convince you that your example hands (for a one-level takeout double) contained 8 controls or the magic ace PLUS the magic AKQ.

You don't need 8 controls

 

AQ10x

xx

AKxx

Qxx

 

and it's on the spade finesse

 

Axxx

xx

AQJ9

Qxx

 

(careful inclusion of the D9 as part of my example hand permit)

 

and it's on the diamond finesse

 

I'm a 5C bidder too. But I think this will be making an overtrick a significant percentage of the time, although not enough to make it worth bidding a slam.

[jdonn]

What is this overtrick talk? I bet down is more likely than overtrick.

[Lobowolf]

Wow, I thought I was an optimist...can you all sign this release form? I have to forward this thread to a couple of my partners...

[skjaeran]

5♣ is the absolutely obvious bid here.

 

It's possible that we make slam, it's even possible that slam will be absolutely cold.

 

However, it's at least as likely that we go down in 5♣.