pclayton Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 ♠x ♥9xx ♦AQxx ♣KJT9x Matchpoints, NV/V Pass - Pass - 1♣ - Pass; 1♠ - pass - 2♠ - ? Time to jump in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 No, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 1♦ is strangely appealing to me first round, but I wouldn't do it. No action now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggieb Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 Being nonvulnerable at matchpoints doesn't even come close to justifying bidding here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 Yes, 2 NT it is MP not Bridge :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoAnneM Posted November 16, 2008 Report Share Posted November 16, 2008 LOL, I think MP is the real game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggieb Posted November 16, 2008 Report Share Posted November 16, 2008 LOL, I think MP is the real game. What does this have to do with anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoAnneM Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 I was responding to an expressed opinion. I believe that is allowed here. If you are the Forum police, I apologize. If there are Forum police I wasn't aware of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfay Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Tempting. But I wouldn't do it. I definitely don't think that bidding is crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 I would bid 2NT here. From my failure to overcall 1♦, partner will know that I have primary clubs and some kind of diamond suit. We cannot allow the opponents to play at the 2 level. If I pass 2♠, partner, with 3 or 4 spades, will not bid. The opponents are likely to bid again if we get in the auction, and Partner may be able to hit 3♠. Yes, matchpoints is a real game, but it is still matchpoints. And being nonvul at matchpoints justifies almost anything. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effervesce Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 2NT for me. It's MPs - never allow the opps to play in a 8 card major fit at the 2 level if you yourself are NV. It's made even more attractive given both opponents are limited - responder is a passed hand, and opener has limited himself. I don't think it's even close between 2NT and pass, but that's just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted November 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 Passing is losing bridge at MPs IMO. Pard has a scattered 10 and won't balance. I think its close between 2N and x. You make 4♣ actually. The reason I posted is because 1♣ was not announced as short (RHO had a 4=4=3=2) and was wondering if the failure to announce had anything to do with the result. Maybe I should have posted the hand a different way. FWIW, she said that if 1♣ was short she'd bid 2N. I believe her and changed it to +130. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 Passing is losing bridge at MPs IMO. Pard has a scattered 10 and won't balance. I think its close between 2N and x. You make 4♣ actually. The reason I posted is because 1♣ was not announced as short (RHO had a 4=4=3=2) and was wondering if the failure to announce had anything to do with the result. Maybe I should have posted the hand a different way. FWIW, she said that if 1♣ was short she'd bid 2N. I believe her and changed it to +130. I think if someone claims that makes the difference to them, there is a very reasonable chance they are telling the truth, maybe less than half but still a significant amount. So I agree with changing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 I agree with the decision; all the offending side had to do to find out what the player in question would have done is announce (/alert) announcable (/alertable) bids. I don't know about how likely I'd think it is that someone's telling the truth; people learn pretty early on what they have to say to a director on a judgment call. Either way, though, it's the offender's fault. I will say that I think it's putting far too fine a point on an auction, and almost certain to be negative expected value in one of the two situations, if you honestly would make one call knowing that an opponent routinely opens 1♦ when 4-4-3-2, and a different call knowing that while the same opponent usually has 4 clubs for a 1♣ opener, and often has 5, and almost always has 3, there is a tiny chance that the opponent is exactly 4-4-3-2 with a hand outside the 1NT range and is opening this particular hand on a doubleton. Honestly, I don't think a hand/auction could be contrived where my call would depend on knowing whether an opponent opened 1♣ or 1♦ when he happens to be exactly 4-4-3-2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoAnneM Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 In an infraction in bridge any "leanings", for want of a better word, go to the non-offender, so if the non-offender tells me they would have bid differently I believe them. If that bid would produce a different result I would adjust the score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 I will say that I think it's putting far too fine a point on an auction, and almost certain to be negative expected value in one of the two situations, if you honestly would make one call knowing that an opponent routinely opens 1♦ when 4-4-3-2, and a different call knowing that while the same opponent usually has 4 clubs for a 1♣ opener, and often has 5, and almost always has 3, there is a tiny chance that the opponent is exactly 4-4-3-2 with a hand outside the 1NT range and is opening this particular hand on a doubleton. If I may, - You already know he is outside his notrump range from the strength shown by his rebid.- Your club length reduces (greatly) opener's expected club length.- Opener's spade length reduces opener's expected club length. I don't think the chance is as tiny as you would lead to believe. Of course it's still just a chance, but large enough that it's reasonable to make that your cutoff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 When I was talking about the "tiny" chance, I meant as a general proposition, not specifically in the context of this hand; I do agree that the factors you list make it more likely here than in the abstract. Having said that, though, in this extreme-case-scenario, would you really both A) pass if you knew that opener guaranteed three clubs, and:D bid either 2NT or double if you knew that opener could be 4-4-3-2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 2NT for me. It's MPs - never allow the opps to play in a 8 card major fit at the 2 level if you yourself are NV. Can you really be sure that the opps are in an 8 card fit? I can't be the only one on the planet who frequently raises with 3 here in MP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 2NT for me. It's MPs - never allow the opps to play in a 8 card major fit at the 2 level if you yourself are NV. Can you really be sure that the opps are in an 8 card fit? I can't be the only one on the planet who frequently raises with 3 here in MP. You're right you can't be sure, but it's overwhelmingly likely to be at least a 4-4 fit because hands where opener raises on 3 usually have 5+ clubs, which is not likely when we hold 5 clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.