Things that make you go hmmm

[hrothgar]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=s54ha964dqjt643c8]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Auction starts:

 

(3♣) - P - (P) - X

(P) - ???

 

Your call

[gwnn]

well how about 4♣, we will play hearts if we have a fit, or 5♦ if we have no fit.

[MarkDean]

Agree with gwnn

[dake50]

I have 3D as H-xfer, then 4D shows canape-type.

[jdonn]

4♣ for sure.

[gnasher]

Isn't anyone worried about getting too high, or being forced to death in hearts? I'd just bid 3♦.

[Codo]

I would bid at the three level for sure. Do I have anything more then my partner is ecpecting?

I think 3 ♦ is the best call, but I love majors and cannot resisit to bid one.

[jdonn]

Isn't anyone worried about missing game? A sub-minimum like xxxx KQxx Axx xx gives us play, and partner won't raise with the AQ of spades more. I can't believe not trying for a game that can so easily be there because of worry of one of the ways it could go down.

[helene_t]

Since it was Richard who opened it I wondered if hmm meant "hidden markov montecarlo" or something.

 

Anyway, agree with Csaba.

[gnasher]

Isn't anyone worried about missing game? A sub-minimum like xxxx KQxx Axx xx gives us play, and partner won't raise with the AQ of spades more. I can't believe not trying for a game that can so easily be there because of worry of one of the ways it could go down.

Deciding not to bid thin games at matchpoints is something we do all the time, isn't it?

 

If I could invite, I'd do that, obviously, but here our only way to try for game is to bid it and see if it makes. That's often a good approach at IMPs, but it's rarely right at matchpoints in an auction where we know the opponents are unlikely to save.

[Fluffy]

3 or 4 is close, but 3♥ IMO better than 3♦ at MPs because it might be raised to 4 more likelly.

[gnasher]

3 or 4 is close, but 3♥ IMO better than 3♦ at MPs because it might be raised to 4 more likelly.

The downside of 3♥ is that if we don't hit a four-card suit it will usually go down, thereby losing the benefit of staying low.

[Codo]

well how about 4♣, we will play hearts if we have a fit, or 5♦ if we have no fit.

So 4 ♣ shows the red suits?

 

Without discussion I had taken this as both majors.

 

And if it is just "two places to play", you will reach 4 diamonds quite often opposite a 3442 hand.

[helene_t]

well how about 4♣, we will play hearts if we have a fit, or 5♦ if we have no fit.

So 4 ♣ shows the red suits?

 

Without discussion I had taken this as both majors.

 

And if it is just "two places to play", you will reach 4 diamonds quite often opposite a 3442 hand.

No, p will bid a major if he has it (which he usually has). With both majors he will bid hearts. If he bids 4♠ then we "know" that 5♦ is what we want to play.

 

So 4♣ should do the trick. If we are willing to force to game.

 

I think we have had some discussion before about what p would do if he has 5♠4♥. He might bid 4♥, catering to this hand. Or he might bid 4♠, preferring the 5-4 fit over the 4-4 fit.

[gwnn]

Partner should always bid 4H with 5431 and 3442. In other words I agree with Helene but she has already agreed with me so I will try not to act suspicious.

[gnasher]

After a 3♣ opening, you could, if your memory was up to it, exploit the extra space by using

  3♣ dbl pass 4♣

  pass 4♦

to show five spades and four hearts.

[hanp]

You could play 4D in that auction as "I don't have 4 hearts", so that we can stop in 4D :).

[hrothgar]

Since it was Richard who opened it I wondered if hmm meant "hidden markov montecarlo" or something.

I do have Hidden Markov Models on the brain right now, which did impact the chocie of title.

 

Said hand was given to me as a bidding problem by a friend of mine. FWIW, I chose to bid 3♦. My thought process was the following:

 

I have a stiff club.

LHO didn't raise.

Whatever partner was doubling on, it wasn't short clubs.

 

My thought process was that having bid 3♦, I'd be very well positioned opposite and rebid by partner (and I was very much expecting a rebid by partner).

 

In retrospect this truned out to be too risky. Partner had a hand where double seems warranted and really wasn't in a position to rebid over 3♦. (More about this later).

 

I'm liking the 4♣ response more and more...

[MickyB]

Even if you play that pard has to bid 4♦ over 4♣ on four cards [which has some advantages for slam purposes], advancer can pull this to 4♥ and opener will only pass with four.

[hanp]

I have a stiff club.

LHO didn't raise.

Whatever partner was doubling on, it wasn't short clubs.

Therefore partner likely has more than a maximum, without wasted values in clubs.

Good thinking.

[y66]

Agree 4C is descriptive and flexible. But I'll just bid what I have: 4D.

[gwnn]

a game force with 6+ diamonds and no 4 card major, perfect description indeed.

[aguahombre]

I have a stiff club.

LHO didn't raise.

Whatever partner was doubling on, it wasn't short clubs.

Therefore partner likely has more than a maximum, without wasted values in clubs.

Good thinking.

And continuing the thought --- since partner has a biggie he will bid again over 3D, already assuming I have my share of the outstanding garbage available. And I get another chance to show the heart suit.

[hanp]

There is a big difference between a biggie and a sound double. Give partner as much as Axx KQxx AKx xxx and he won't bid again over 3D.

[OleBerg]

3 or 4 is close, but 3♥ IMO better than 3♦ at MPs because it might be raised to 4 more likelly.

The downside of 3♥ is that if we don't hit a four-card suit it will usually go down, thereby losing the benefit of staying low.

Indeed.

 

I would choose 3♦ too, but the alternative is not 3♥. It is game.