a few matchpoint decisions

[quiddity]

Matchpoints, average club field.

 

1. ♠Q8xx ♥Tx ♦Tx ♣AKQxx. r/r, LHO deals.

(p)-p-(1N)-p; (2♣!)-p-(2♥)-?

1NT = 12-14. 2♣ was alerted as non-forcing stayman (both majors).

 

2. ♠x ♥xxxx ♦QTx ♣KQJxx. r/w, RHO deals

(p)-p-(2♠)-p; (p)-?

 

3. ♠Tx ♥J9xxxx ♦8xxx ♣x. r/r, RHO deals.

(1♦)-p-(1♥)-X; (1N)-p-(p)-X; (XX)-?

XX was "undiscussed".

 

4. ♠Jx ♥xx ♦KQ9x ♣K87xx. w/w, partner deals.

p-(1♦)-p-(1♥); 1♠-(2♥)-?

2♥ promised 4 card support.

 

5. ♠Jxx ♥Jx ♦AQJTx ♣Jxx. w/w, LHO deals.

(p)-1♣-(p)-1♦; (p)-1♥-(p)-?

Partner promises 5+ clubs.

 

Thanks!

[han]

1. Does this mean that they have a guaranteed heart fit? If so I'd bid 3C, even though I hate my hand and the vulnerability.

 

2. Double.

 

3. The only thing that is clear is that partner has a strong hand. I'd bid 2H.

 

4. Double, easiest problem of the set.

 

5. 1NT. My first thoughts went to 3C and 2C but having thought more about it I think that 1NT is clearly best.

[whereagles]

1. Should have acted the round before, even if that meant dbling. Now you're stuck. Normally LHO will have the 44 majors weak hand, but he can still have like 11 and a real invite bid. I would still play the odds and try 3♣ now. With trepidation.

 

2. MPs, huh? Dbl.

 

3. 2♦. If opps are bidding right pard has a singleton/void heart and diamonds seems like the only playable strain. If he happens to have spades he'll probably rescue himself anyway.

 

4. 2♠. Opps are very likely to raise to 3♥ and pard probably won't bid to the 3 level because he's a passed hand.

 

5. 3♣ seems canonical.

[bluecalm]

1. Very difficult imo, I think I pass.

2. Pass imo.

3. 2♥ and I don't see any alternative actions

4. Double about what I should have for this.

5. Yeah, 1NT. 1♠ could be possible if it's 4th suit which is not forcing to game (so I could pass 1NT rebid). Playing in clubs doesnt looks too good if partner is 3-4-1-5 (his most likely shape in this auction).

[ahydra]

1) I'd prob have bid 2C over 1NT... now I guess I've gotta pass since the 3 level looks too high?

 

2) Pass - perhaps it depends if you think your opponents are overabusing the vul, but that rubbish heart suit will probably end up trumps :(

 

3) 2H

 

4) Double - textbook example!

 

5) 3C is awful with all those jacks, but 2C is wimpish, so I agree with 1NT.

 

ahydra

[Phil]

1. Pass. Why is everyone assuming they know the OP's methods over 1N? Maybe we couldn't bid a natural 2♣ before? (Who can?) The "NF" stayman I've run into simply means LHO doesn't have a GF. Its quite possible that LHO is either raising hearts, bidding spades or NT, in which case taking a call here is foolish.

 

2. Double. And loving it.

 

3. Shrug. At the table I might just bluff a pass and watch LHO squirm and pull. I've never heard of a 1N bidder making a strong xx here - it makes little sense to me. Is this the same pair on #1 that is playing weak NT's (I hope not).

 

4.Nervous x. Don't want to sell out to 2H. I'm probably creating a headache for my 5233 partner.

 

5. 2♣. Sorry but I think 1N is awful. How many diamonds do you think pard has?

[han]

5. 2♣. Sorry but I think 1N is awful. How many diamonds do you think pard has?

 

If partner passes 1NT then I think that partner has 0-2 diamonds. He could be 2-4-2-5, 3-4-1-5 or 4-4-0-5, and he has about 11-14 HCP (although 15 is also possible, and perhaps 10 when he has a nice 4-4-0-5). Neither opponent could overcall in a major, so let's say that neither opponent has a 6-card major or at least an 8-count and a 5-card major.

 

I'm going to run a double dummy simulation with these specifications to see how 1NT and 2C compare. I don't claim that this will prove anything, but I hope it will be interesting at least.

[han]

1NT makes 86% of the time, 2C makes 93% of the time.

 

Out of 400 hands, 1NT beats 2C 171 times, loses 159 times and equals 70 times.

 

Small double dummy victory for 1NT.

 

Now Phil can explain why double dummy simulation is ridiculously biased against 2C and why 1NT is still awful.

[bluecalm]

Now Phil can explain why double dummy simulation is ridiculously biased against 2C and why 1NT is still awful.

 

:)

For what's it worth it's probably biased towards 2♣ according to my theorem about NTvsSuit which says that first lead matters much more vs NT and declarers makes more tricks in NT comparing to double dummy than in suit contracts.

I have no prove what so over only some empirical evidence. Humanity will have to wait for stronger arguments :)

[gnasher]

I can think of two advantages of 3♣ over 1NT which won't have been picked up by Han's simulation:

- 3♣ limits responder's hand and shape more narrowly, so our game bidding will be more accurate after 3♣.

- If we belong in 3NT, partner should be declarer.

 

I'm not saying that those are enough reason to bid 3♣, but it's something to consider.

 

Also, you seem to be saying that it's normal for a 3415 15- or 16-count to bid again after 1NT. I'm not sure that I agree with that. Partner is expecting a misfit, and he's playing matchpoints too.

[han]

I can think of two advantages of 3♣ over 1NT which won't have been picked up by Han's simulation:

- 3♣ limits responder's hand and shape more narrowly, so our game bidding will be more accurate after 3♣.

- If we belong in 3NT, partner should be declarer.

 

I'm not saying that those are enough reason to bid 3♣, but it's something to consider.

 

3C has a narrower range, indeed, but I don't think our hand falls into that range. If we overbid and misdescribe our hand, I don't think that our gamebidding will be more accurate. In fact, I would expect us to get to too many bad games.

 

The rightsiding factor is not so big. There are some holdings where notrump is better from partner's side, but probably more where it doesn't matter and I can think of at least one holding where notrump should be in our hand.

 

Also, you seem to be saying that it's normal for a 3415 15- or 16-count to bid again after 1NT. I'm not sure that I agree with that. Partner is expecting a misfit, and he's playing matchpoints too.

 

A 3-4-1-5 hand with 16 high card point is quite a powerful hand, I don't think partner would pass holding that. I also think you are overdoing the misfit angle.

[gwnn]

I've never seen

1NT-p-2♣ to mean 4-4 in the majors (even if it's a weak NT, even if 2♣ was made by a passed hand), OP are you sure that's what it meant?

[Phil]

Since I am only concerned with self-justification, here is my futile attempt at discounting Han's ridiculous DD analysis:

 

1. I think Han is overdoing the chances of a spade overcall in his constraints, especially by 4th chair. While many here will automatically overcall 1♠ on Axxxx and an 8 count, in real life it does not happen. This is significant, because it makes it more likely the opponent can run a lot of spades at us.

 

2. A sim assumes perfect defense and perfect play which means (and this is what Bluecalm is anecdotally suggesting):

 

- Declarer is always guessing diamonds right in 1N when he has x/xx.

 

- The defense leads trump against 2♣ only when it is right. Of course the defense finds the double dummy lead of the Q from AQTx against 1N when pard has Kxx, too, but it seems to impact a suit contract more.

 

3. If we bid 2♣, what are the chances the opponents are going to balance w/w? We are in a fit auction, so this seems quite possible and this is a great outcome for us.

 

I didn't mention it before, but I think 3♣ is very bad. It jeopardizes our plus in either 1N or 2♣, and gets us to a bad 3N a lot of the time, and when that matters, partner will sometimes take a call over 1N, although have others have stated a 3415 15-16 could be a problem.

 

Anyway, I will retract "awful", because it does look close either way. Even under Han's sim, it looks like the EV of the two contracts is about 3% different in matchpoints.

 

Now I will wait for Han to explain to me that 3% is a huge difference in EV, and its something I need to worry about.

[quiddity]

I've never seen

1NT-p-2♣ to mean 4-4 in the majors (even if it's a weak NT, even if 2♣ was made by a passed hand), OP are you sure that's what it meant?

 

I'm not sure. The opponent's explanation was confusing and we were short on time so I didn't follow up. Thinking back I suspect that Phil is right and it just means that responder doesn't have a game-force but could still have an invite with one major.

[rogerclee]

1) Pass, it's incredibly scary to come in here r/r with a balanced hand and waste in spades.

2) Double, it's a min and again it's also quite scary to come in, but I think we have to act.

3) I think I pass and hope to survive, any bid seems inadequate. 2H looks good on the surface but hearts are almost certainly at best 6412 around the table, and our poor spot cards won't allow us to survive.

4) Double, not really a problem.

5) 1N, we have a balanced 10 count with a bunch of jacks and are playing matchpoints, I don't get it.

[Finch]

On 5 we are told partner promises 5+ clubs. How does he bid with a 4=4=1=4 in that order?

[quiddity]

On 5 we are told partner promises 5+ clubs. How does he bid with a 4=4=1=4 in that order?

 

Typically she would rebid 1NT with a minimum but with 15-17 or whatever she would probably rebid 1♥.

[han]

I misinterpreted the information about hand 1. I change my response to pass. Only if I was pretty sure that the opponents had found a 4-4 heart fit would I bid 3C.

[nige1]

Matchpoints, average club field.

1. ♠Q8xx ♥Tx ♦Tx ♣AKQxx. r/r, LHO deals.

(_p)-_p-(1N)-p;

(2♣)-_p-(2♥)-??

1NT = 12-14. 2♣ was alerted as non-forcing stayman (both majors)

IMO P = 10, X(T/O) = 5, 3♣ = 4.

2. ♠x ♥xxxx ♦QTx ♣KQJxx. r/w, RHO deals

(_p)-_p-(2♠)-p;

(_p)-??

IMO X = 10, 3♣ = 6, P = 5.

3. ♠Tx ♥J9xxxx ♦8xxx ♣x. r/r, RHO deals.

(1♦)-_p-(1♥)-_X;

(1N)-_p-(_p)-_X;

(XX)-??

XX was "undiscussed".

IMO _P = 10. 2♥ = 9.

4. ♠Jx ♥xx ♦KQ9x ♣K87xx. w/w, partner deals.

_p-(1♦)-_p-(1♥);

1♠-(2♥)-??

2♥ promised 4 card support.

IMO 2♠ = 10, _P = 9, _X = 6

5. ♠Jxx ♥Jx ♦AQJTx ♣Jxx. w/w, LHO deals.

(_p)-1♣-(_p)-1♦;

(_p)-1♥-(_p)-??

Partner promises 5+ clubs.

IMO 3♣ = 10, 2♣ = 9, 1♠ = 6, 1N = 5.

[han]

Could somebody explain the rationale behind 2S on hand 4? Doesn't double show this hand?

[JLOGIC]

I know this thread is old, so here are my answers before reading anything to avoid bias:

 

1) Obvious pass, why would we consider bidding something?

 

2) I would double even though my hand will be subpar defensively, if partner bids something it will almost surely be good and if he passes he might just have the nuts anyways.

 

3) Pass. So far partner has shown a very strong hand, the opps have bid my suits, and RHO has made an SOS redouble. Why would I bid something? Even if LHO has a hand to pass (which is probably much less than 50 %, partner's second X of 1N should be very strong), partner can run himself out if he doesn't like it that much, he will know we are completely broke and whether he can expect to set 1N XX in his own hand or not. It's possible we are toast no matter what we do, in which case our only shot is hoping that they run. That's the other thing, if I were going to bid, then what? 2H will surely get doubled if LHO has any points, he knows his partner has a doubleton heart and he knows our hearts are very weak (no 1H or 2H overcall).

 

4) Double to show my hand almost perfectly lol

 

5) Partner can't have 4414? Anyways, 1N seems obvious, I'm not bidding 2C at MP.

[JLOGIC]

I can think of two advantages of 3♣ over 1NT which won't have been picked up by Han's simulation:

- 3♣ limits responder's hand and shape more narrowly, so our game bidding will be more accurate after 3♣.

- If we belong in 3NT, partner should be declarer.

 

I'm not saying that those are enough reason to bid 3♣, but it's something to consider.

 

Also, you seem to be saying that it's normal for a 3415 15- or 16-count to bid again after 1NT. I'm not sure that I agree with that. Partner is expecting a misfit, and he's playing matchpoints too.

 

Three clubs? Yes, if you have a game, 3C will probably work out best...but the other huge majority of the time or whatever when you don't it won't do very well! Our hand is awful. I think partner will overbid to far too many games (when really it was us who overbid), and when he passes 3C that will often just go down. Is a 3415 11 or 12 or 13 count so unlikely? I don't expect my hand to play very well opposite that.

 

As far as 2C vs 1N, if we are making 3N then I would rather have bid 1N. Yes, I might have wrongsided it when partner will bid over either of those, but at least when he passes and we miss a game (with the field), we will be in the higher scoring partial. I would have expected everyone to try 1N or 2C here until reading your 3C post; surely many will anyways. 1N is also easier to bid over than 2C (since we will rate to have more values on average for 1N).

 

But again, I am really not thinking about game, I think much of the time that we have one partner will bid over a minimum bid by us (though not as aggressively as han thinks), I am just trying to reach the higher scoring partscore. Here I would obviously expect NT to score better than clubs as we have so much overall and junky values.

[JLOGIC]

I misinterpreted the information about hand 1. I change my response to pass. Only if I was pretty sure that the opponents had found a 4-4 heart fit would I bid 3C.

 

Even if they showed a fit, bidding would be atrocious. TBH I cannot see what you were even thinking. Partner is a passed hand and we have 11 with long spades and 5422... Just because they have a fit does not give us tricks. Even if we don't get doubled it is not unlikely at all that we go down 2 if we don't catch 2-4 in the blacks or something like that which is unlikely. On top of that it would be extremely easy to double us if they had already shown a fit, LHO could just double to say he wants to compete or defend. Ok, it's the local duplicate, they might not just double us on points here, but I still think down 2 vul just seems like a very likely score and risks a complete zero for potentially no gain (If we catch great and are cold for 3C, what are the odds they won't bid and make 3H? It seems unlikely that 3C is the limit of the hand. Yeah, we force them to take the push, and sometimes we get some incorrect pushes, but what an incredible risk just to try and induce an error.)

[quiddity]

Thanks for all your comments! The actual hands might not be all that interesting but fwiw:

 

1. Responder has a 4342 5-count and partner has ATx Kxx KJxx xxx. Double dummy they can make 2H and partner can make 2S but in practice most of the field was in 3C -1. I don't know if partner is supposed to balance with that hand after 2H is passed around.

 

2. Partner has Q98xx AKx Axx xx and we can just beat 2S. Declarer's hand is worse than it could have been though (KJTxx Jxx J A8xx) so in that sense we were lucky.

 

3. Good call by people who passed this. Partner had KQ9x K AQJ QJTxx. 2H was down one, and was doubled (ouch). 1NT by RHO was down 1 at many tables.

 

4. This hand wasn't very interesting. I agree it's a clear double.

 

5. Partner had AT Kxxx Kx ATxxx. We make 130 in clubs and only 120 in NT. Among the pairs who stopped in a partial it was pretty evenly split between NT and a minor suit.