Club MPs, your call

[peachy]

AK9x-Jx-10x-Q9xxx

We vul, they not-vul.

Club game, one of the best pairs in room as opponents, expert partner.

LHO dealer.

 

(1D) P (1S) P

(2S) P (P) your turn.

 

1) Do you agree with auction so far?

2) Now, do you Pass or balance?

Anything else?

[TylerE]

Is this for real? Pass...wtp.

 

Anyone balancing here at unfavorable should be shot. Even at favorable I think it's terrible.

[doclands]

If you are as expert as your partner then why risk a terrible board - this will presumably happen at least at a few other tables, probably most, so take 3 or 4 out of 10 and get on to the next board. I prefer bidding 2C first time and then shutting up to even considering balancing but would pass both times. Bidding 2C is bad, balancing is very bad. Introduce a red suit singleton and now 2C is a bit closer. Good players don't need to strain to win at pairs - it isn't about getting the best score on each hand. It's about avoiding really bad boards and picking up 7 or 8 out of 10 on most of the rest because of your better play/ defence and general bidding skills.

[bluecalm]

If you play a style with light overcalls the chances of partner having 5+ hearts are slim. She should have 1 spade, 4 hearts, on average 4diamonds.

The chances for club fit are huge, also there will be one or even two spade ruffs available.

 

I like 3♣.

[doclands]

I agree partner may well have 1♠, 4♥, 4+♦ but the oppos have opened and responded and 7 of your 10 pts are in their suit, and another in Jx - where do you think their points are. -200 looks certain even if they don't double.

[bluecalm]

-200 looks certain even if they don't double.

 

This is completely off.

Maybe it's too risky but the question is really if it makes ~40% of the time or 60+% of time.

Just to refute your "-200 is certain" assertion here is one of the many generated layouts :

 

[hv=n=sq862hat84dk962ca&w=sak93hj5dt3cq9543&e=s7hk632da754ck872&s=sjt54hq97dqj8cjt6]399|300|[/hv]

 

Where +130 looks certain (and you would make even without K♥ or A♦).

I run a quick simul with kinda optimistic assumptios (they raise with 4 spades) and 3♣ makes 63% of time. The question here is how likely is partner to have 5+♥ (the more often, the worse) and how likely they are to raise with 3 spades (the more often the worse) and how likely they are to double you.

[Free]

Auction is ok so far. Now I have an easy pass. Partner rates to be short in ♠ and didn't Dbl for takeout. This means he's usually weak or has the wrong shape (long ♦ and ♥).

 

Bluecalm's layout is impossible, partner would've doubled 2♠.

[doclands]

Good hand - generates a lot of different views. Please note I said '-200 looks certain', not '-200 is certain' , I agree -200 is not certain :)

[bluecalm]

Bluecalm's layout is impossible, partner would've doubled 2♠.

 

A lot of different styles... Imo doubling with E hand is suicidal. Opponents may have like 28hcp and we have weak 4-4-4-1 vulnerable.

I guess if you like doubling in direct seat as you were in balanced seat then indeed 3♣ is bad in balanced seat.

[doclands]

One thing, which my comments were based on, appears to have possibly been missed. This was described as a club game with and expert partner - also my comment as to whether the original poster was also an expert was intended as trying to obtain necessary info to give an informed comment, not intended as criticising the post or poster (I now have a little pink warn thing which I don't thing was there before :))

 

If this is indeed two experts playing in a club game then it is an unnecessary risk IMO because of the two doubletons.

 

By the way, what are the little pink 'warn' things?

[bluecalm]

(I now have a little ping warn thing which I don't thing was there before )

 

I never use those and i have no idea what they mean.

There isn't anything even close to being improper in your posts. Direct expressing of your opinions even if they are strong are more than welcome.

[billw55]

I'm not sure on this one.

 

I understand that 3♣ looks insane vul. It does to me too. On the other hand, I remember plenty of 1/10 or 2/10 matchpoint scores for -110 after letting ops play 2M. So I might reason that if I am getting a bad score anyway, why not go down fighting? Who knows, we could hit the jackpot if they bid 3♠ and we get +50, or if they pass and we get +110 for 3♣=.

 

I guess the problem is, if they are making 9 tricks in spades anyway, bidding 3♣ gives them a chance to turn 140 into 200 which would be very bad. Although a lot of club players have a hard time finding doubles of partscores ... but you have said ops are a top pair. Meh, many possibilities.

 

In the end I might base the decision on whether my partner is the kind that prefers bad scores due to action or bad scores due to inaction :)

[andy_h]

Pass. I have defensive values everywhere and I'm not certain the opponents actually do have an eight card fit.

[doclands]

This post is why bridge is such a great game - lots of different views, which people believe are the right ones, or at least sensible ones - but more importantly these are views that people have thought about. How many different bridge paths have we all come along to get where we are today :)

[jjbrr]

Pass.

 

A plus score at MPs is so often a good score that trying to take six tricks rather than nine seems the smart move.

 

If they were bidding 3♠, I may have missed some extra points, but there's no reason to expect them to bid again.

[655321]

Pass

[pooltuna]

1) Yes and see no reasonable alternatives

2) -1 looks very probable. So if they find an X I am handing them 200 a very bad MP score. consequently I am inclined to pass.

[ArtK78]

There are many players who take the view that at matchpoints if the opponents find a fit and are willing to pass it out at the 2 level then our side cannot allow that to happen.

 

There is some merit to that view. However, this hand looks to be a clear pass.

 

There is no guarantee that your opps are in an 8 or 9 card fit. Many players will raise a major suit response on 3 cards. This gives partner one more spade and one less card elsewhere. So the chances of your having a good club fit are not as good as you might think.

 

In addition, as has been pointed out above, if partner had the perfect hand for a balancing action by you - such as x Kxxx Axxx Kxxx - he might have doubled 2♠ as a prebalancing action.

 

So while balancing may be the winning action, it seems that this is a pass. Maybe not a WTP, but still a pass.

[nigel_k]

Club game, one of the best pairs in room as opponents, expert partner.

Depends what club you play at, but against non-expert opponents I would always bid 3♣ and would not expect partner to double with a hand like bluecalm's example. My action is obviously risky but I have more safety than partner has.

[JLOGIC]

madness

[peachy]

madness

I thought it would be crazy to balance with a 3C bid. We made a little bet, I said "no expert would bid 3C" he said at least half of experts would bid 3C".

 

Somebody in this thread commented on the level of our opponents. They were as good as we were.

 

I want to win this bet, there is $1 at the stake!

[bluecalm]

I made quick survey between some friends, who are quite good players.

No sympathy for 3♣ vulnerable there. Nonvul some of them would be tempted.

That being said I think if you choose the best player among posters here you will get higher standards than those in m poll.

 

I still like 3♣ but I agree it's risky. It's probably inferior option against people who often raise with 3 card support and for sure if we are playing with a partner who likes to "pre balance".

[jjbrr]

Spend your dollar wisely, Peachy

[aguahombre]

I think it is more likely the Opps only have seven trumps, than us having a favorable outcome venturing into the auction now. Am eliminating all the hands where my expert partner would have already pulled a non-green card.

[peachy]

I made quick survey between some friends, who are quite good players.

No sympathy for 3♣ vulnerable there. Nonvul some of them would be tempted.

That being said I think if you choose the best player among posters here you will get higher standards than those in m poll.

 

I still like 3♣ but I agree it's risky. It's probably inferior option against people who often raise with 3 card support and for sure if we are playing with a partner who likes to "pre balance".

In case it matters, we both are completely aware of the need to prebalance - and do - with short in their spades and our expected share of values ans shape, after (1D)P(1S)P(2S) -