What now?

[vuroth]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sa63hk5dckqt98652]133|100|Scoring: MP

P 1♣ 1♦ 1♠

3♦ 4♣ 4♦ P

P ?[/hv]

 

This hand

may have made me hate matchpoints.

 

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

 

P did hear you.

 

As you decided to bid 4C, you also decided, that you leave it to p,

if you play 4C or 5C.

Furtermore - 4C is certainly also not a weak bid, so if p would have

liked to play 4Dx, he had the chance to say so, he said, that he has

no interest.

 

I think the opening bid is fine, and I also dont have a problem with 4C,

you are red vs. green playing MP.

But even at other vulnerabilities you need 2-3 tricks from p to make 5C,

if he had them, he would have raised.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[billw55]

Marlowe you are so reasonable :)

 

Personally, I would give extra value to Axx in partner's suit, and to the diamond void where partner rates to have no wastage. So I would bid 5♣ over 3♦. But I am not known for my restraint.

[P_Marlowe]

Marlowe you are so reasonable  :)

<snip>

So I would bid 5♣ over 3♦.  But I am not known for my restraint.

Thanks, but I did I not claim, I restrain myself, I quite agressivly try

for game, even when game seems extremly far strechted.

 

But thats is not something I would recommend to a player, who asks

for advice.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Zelandakh]

Personally, I would give extra value to Axx in partner's suit, and to the diamond void where partner rates to have no wastage. So I would bid 5♣ over 3♦. But I am not known for my restraint.

Surely if you are going to bid then 4S is obvious?

[helene_t]

Is 4♥ choice of game? If I were playing with Ken Rexford I might try that.

 

Otherwise 5♣

[billw55]

Personally, I would give extra value to Axx in partner's suit, and to the diamond void where partner rates to have no wastage.  So I would bid 5♣ over 3♦.  But I am not known for my restraint.

Surely if you are going to bid then 4S is obvious?

You must mean 4♠ over 4♦ - after rebidding clubs. Right?

[Zelandakh]

You must mean 4♠ over 4♦ - after rebidding clubs. Right?

Absolutely. I cannot understand bidding 5C here at all.

[ONEferBRID]

Dealer: East Vul: N/S Scoring: MP

♠ A63 ♥ K5 ♦ [space] ♣ KQT98652

P 1♣ 1♦ 1♠ 3♦ 4♣ 4♦ P P ?

 

This hand

may have made me hate matchpoints.

Didn't partner's 1S show at least 5 cards ?

 

And you have 3 cards Sp, yet you didn't bid 3S over 3D.

[655321]

Didn't partner's 1S show at least 5 cards ?

Seems unlikely, don't you think OP would have mentioned it if they were playing something so unusual?

[ArtK78]

I don't see that 4♠ is so obvious.

 

Suppose you buy the contract in 4♠. A high diamond is led, and you have to ruff in the dummy. Now, unless partner has the ♣A and can pull trump without losing the lead, there may be a lot of red cards to lose.

 

But in clubs, you will be able to keep control of the hand.

 

I am not saying that there won't be some configurations where 10 tricks in spades will be easy while 11 tricks in clubs will be impossible, but in most cases clubs will produce more tricks than spades.

 

Besides, if I bid 4♠, I may have to table this hand as dummy. That would violate Kantar's rule - "Never put an eight card side suit down in the dummy." Or something like that.

[vuroth]

Believe me, Kantar's rule was in my head when I bid this.

[billw55]

You must mean 4♠ over 4♦ - after rebidding clubs.  Right?

Absolutely. I cannot understand bidding 5C here at all.

I was advocating 5♣ immediately over 3♦.

[ONEferBRID]

Here is a treatment to reduce the problems for Responder for the 1C - ( 1D ) - ?? auction:

 

   1H freebid shows 4 or more

 

   1S freebid shows 5 or more.

 

Hence, the Neg-DBL guarantees 4 Spades but says nada about Hts.

[the hog]

Pretty obvious pass. I do have a partner!

[Fluffy]

When all you need from partner is to have KJ on a suit he bid freely to have a shot at game you better bid game.

 

4♠ will be an awful contract, I bid 5♣ the round before BTW so I don't have any strange desires to play in spades later.

[nige1]

Dealer: East Vul: N/S Scoring: MP

♠ A63 ♥ K5 ♦ [space] ♣ KQT98652

P 1♣ 1♦ 1♠ 3♦ 4♣ 4♦ P P ?

IMO 4♠ = 10, 5♣ = 9, _P = 8.

Rebidding ♣ at the four-level first should hint to partner that ♣ is probably safer unless he has long ♠ or a ♣ fit.

[kayin801]

Yeah, pass, if partner had any reason to suspect we would make game after we freely bid at the 4 level we would have heard something. It sucks but +50 is definitely better than -100 at MP, and when they make for -130 sometimes we are -200 (or doubled)

[ggwhiz]

Easier at imps but I can soooo often make 5♣ opposite a stiff or even a void (the real reasons for pards pass) that I'm bidding it but a full round ago. If I did that, I'm betting on 5♦ doubled being the final contract. Yeah!

 

There is strong merit to the notion that you made your bed when you bid 4♣ instead of 5 but at the prices they charge here, I want my moneys worth.

[the hog]

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> East </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> N/S </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> MP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> A63 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> K5 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> KQT98652 </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> P 1♣ 1♦ 1♠

3♦ 4♣ 4♦ P

P ? </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

IMO 4♠ = 10, 5♣ = 9, _P = 8.

Rebidding ♣ at the four-level first should hint to partner that ♣ is probably safer unless he has long ♠ or a ♣ fit.

I think you have these scores somewhat skewif.

4S = 2, 5C = 0 P = 10

[jdonn]

I think pass is so weird and bad, was partner supposed to bid differently with Kxxx QJx xxxx Jx or something? AQx of hearts and out? Easy 5♣. I could have bid it the round before but I suppose I was hoping partner could rebid spades instead. If he couldn't I'm not going to offer spades though, that has disaster written all over it if we have a 5-3 fit.

[hanp]

Agree with jdonn. The fact that you bid 4C last round doesn't prohibit you from making a good bid this round.

[hanp]

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> East </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> N/S </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> MP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> A63 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> K5 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> KQT98652 </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> P 1♣ 1♦ 1♠

3♦ 4♣ 4♦ P

P ? </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

IMO 4♠ = 10, 5♣ = 9, _P = 8.

Rebidding ♣ at the four-level first should hint to partner that ♣ is probably safer unless he has long ♠ or a ♣ fit.

I think you have these scores somewhat skewif.

4S = 2, 5C = 0 P = 10

Writing the initial hand in x-factor notation would have saved us from this stupidity.

[nige1]

Writing the initial hand in x-factor notation would have saved us from this stupidity.

What is "x-factor notation", hanp? Anyway, rewriting the original problem to facilitate quotation...

Matchpoints NS/East ♠ A63 ♥ K5 ♦ - ♣ KQT98652

(_P) 1♣ (1♦) 1♠

(3♦) 4♣ (4♦) _P

(_P) ??

IMO: 4♠ is a better Matchpoints contract if it makes most of the time, even if 5♣ is a better IMPS contract. There is no need to mastermind: you have already rebid ♣, vulnerable at the four-level, before admitting to ♠ tolerance, so partner may be able to take the hint that 4♠ is a mild suggestion and could be be hard to play. Finally, opposite a perfect fit you might make a slam. It would still be hard to reach but 4♠ could help exploration.

e.g. ♠ Kxxx ♥ AQx ♦ xxxxx ♣ J