Matchpoint Decision

[aguahombre]

I disagree with you here on the comments that you have already described your hand and that you have no more than a full opener.

 

While having the A as your stiff is a negative, the 4th spade (which I assume we've shown), the spade J, the stiff, and the good club suit all combine to make this a very good hand for the auction so far. Were we to hold KJxx xxx Ax AJxx, then we would be able to say that we have described our hand and have no more than a full opener. If we compare that hand to the one we hold, we can see that our actual hand is worth a lot more.

If we have not described our hand, and it is worth a lot more for offense, shouldn't we have bid 3S last time? Seems as if we already decided it wasn't, rightly or wrongly.

The next three calls back to South don't change much.

[ggwhiz]

I think Gwnn's estimate of his partner passing 3D out being one in ten might be a bit exaggerated; but the times he would double holding four diamonds make it closer.

 

Know your partner. That 1 in 10 thing is not an exaggeration.

 

In a partnership context I don't disagree with either side and find this to be one of the more interesting threads.

 

ps. My pard will put the hammer down on 4 petunia trumps and any attractive club lead or holding and yes, we eat a few -470's but without rancour.

[mikeh]

If we have not described our hand, and it is worth a lot more for offense, shouldn't we have bid 3S last time? Seems as if we already decided it wasn't, rightly or wrongly.

The next three calls back to South don't change much.

I don't see any inconsistency in bidding only 2♠ then 3♠.

 

Bidding 3♠ initially is not trying to buy the hand...it is an invitation to game.

 

We bid 2♠ because we weren't strong enough to invite game, but our decision now has nothing at all to do with that issue. We are now addressing a partscore decision, holding a hand on which we'd have accepted most gametries by partner.

 

it is all well and good to say that partner is still there....it is the type of comment I make frequently...but passing here doesn't help partner very much. We know we are hoping that he can bid...he doesn't know that our hand makes us think that way.

 

Oh, and by the way, the 3 calls after our 2♠ bid did give us a little information....for one thing, there is now a slightly increased likelihood that the opps have a 9 card fit, and that is a factor that militates in favour of bidding.

[aguahombre]

Of course. However, I am used to either partner or the opponents already having shown the nine-card fit and thus prejudiced. This has been a good thread; agreeing to disagree and doing it without malice.

[ggwhiz]

for one thing, there is now a slightly increased likelihood that the opps have a 9 card fit, and that is a factor that militates in favour of bidding.

 

Partner knows this and if they have an 8 card fit knows that with certainty. Surely I didn't pass with a ♦ void? Good debate.

[JLOGIC]

So partner should bid our stiff for us? How does partner know we have a stiff diamond if he has 3 diamonds. Often in those cases it will be right to compete, and since we are the one looking at the stiff diamond maybe we can bid it for ourselves.

[ggwhiz]

for one thing, there is now a slightly increased likelihood that the opps have a 9 card fit.

 

My pard is not only glass 1/2 full it overflows and with 3 small in their suit will pencil me in for a stiff and live with it when wrong.

[SimonFa]

I'm fairly new to all this and am reading Kit Woolsey's Matchpoints* and it seems to me there is more to this than just the LOTT.

 

We have to consider what the rest of the field is doing. So from my understanding of Kit's arguments we have to consider that:

 

Some will be allowed to play in 2S and if that makes they are plus 110 and we aren't going to take 3D down 3 and down 2 doubled is unlikely as well so we have already lost out to them. How likely is this?

 

If 3S makes then we lose to all those bidding 2 and 3 as leaving 3D in means we have absolutely no chance of matching or beating this score. So biding 3S now puts us on a par with them.

 

Also, how likely is 3D to make? My guess is they have pushed to 3 with 8 trumps, we have the A and partner is likely to have 4 so maybe a chance of -1, so not enough to match 3S-1 and I can't see D going down 2.

 

So the final decision has to be based on what we think the field will be doing and how good are our Opps relative to the field.

 

 

So what does all that mean? I'm still not sure but in our club against the better pairs I would assume field is in 2S as most won't push to 3D, so I'll take the push because I've already lost out. Against the weaker players I have to assume that all will go to 3D and few will take the push to 3S, so I'm passing.

 

Regards,

 

Simon

 

PS I would welcome any comments on my understanding

 

*Thanks to the BBOer who recommended it, its a really informative read

[wyman]

The other consideration, Simon, is that you are not in the passout seat here; if you decide to pass (which I'm not necessarily advocating), partner still gets to act, and presumably he's read Matchpoints, too.

[gwnn]

My pard is not only glass 1/2 full it overflows and with 3 small in their suit will pencil me in for a stiff and live with it when wrong.

My advice: get a new partner.

[JLOGIC]

The other consideration, Simon, is that you are not in the passout seat here; if you decide to pass (which I'm not necessarily advocating), partner still gets to act, and presumably he's read Matchpoints, too.

 

omg please stop with this.

 

Obviously the set of hands where we pass, and partner bids, compared to we bid are irrelevant.

 

Just like analyzing a suit combination just ignore scenarios that are a wash. So the bidders are saying: of the hands that partner passes it out, bidding will probably work better. The passers are saying that passing will work out worse.

 

Arguments like "my partner always bids!" are not related to this problem on a forum imo, if you are adjusting based on your partners strange/bad tendencies that's fine. You also might not cuebid with automatic cuebids if your partner always drives to slam when you cuebid, etc. That doesn't make not cuebidding the right bridge bid in a vacuum.

 

Partner will pass it out when it's wrong a lot of the time because he doesn't know about a key feature of our hand...our stiff diamond! Yes LOTT is pretty dumb but having a stiff vs not having one is still a huge factor in competing to 3 over 3. Having good trumps and a good side suit are another factor. Partner will not magically always bid when it's right, he will assume we don't have a stiff diamond if he has 3 diamonds (a very likely scenario) because we didn't bid. He will play us for 4324 or whatever and bid accordingly. If we have a stiff diamond it's usually with bad trumps or a stiff K or stiff Q or something, it's not with this hand. So partner will definitely misevaluate a lot of the time.

[JLOGIC]

I think it's worth noting that partner is not 4-4 in the majors either. So he will have some kind of club fit always (a likely shape being 4333 (if he has 5 spades, we can expect him to bid much of the time), where I will bet he will not be eager to compete with basically any hand).

 

Another shape that partner might have to not compete is 4234. Before you say he will automatically bid because of our great double fit, keep in mind in his mind we will likely be 4423 which is not much of a double fit. Generally 2 balanced hands should not compete to 3 over 3, especially as partner rates to have bad trumps. Generally the onus is on the guy who has a stiff and good trumps and a good side 5 card suit to bid something. A hand like Qxxx Kx xxx Qxxx will just never consider bidding 3S vulnerable, and that could easily be a double partscore swing.

 

And that is the other thing, the law ignores how good your hands are, but when you are vulnerable you are risking down 200 to bid which is a disaster, and you're making yourself an easy mark to get doubled for 200 which good opponents will do frequently. Bidding to the 3 level vul at matchpoints is a big deal, and you need some kind of hand (or good trumps at least). Our hand is really really good for this auction, we do not need partner to have a good hand at all for bidding to work out.

[wyman]

omg please stop with this.

 

Justin,

 

Note that my post didn't advocate any specific action, and I'm making no assumptions about partner's habits. All I said was that in Simon's analysis, he analyzed this as though we were in the pass-out seat. We're not. That may not make a difference on this hand, but he asked for commentary on his analysis -- not on his conclusion; that partner still has a say may be relevant on other hands.

 

edit:

Partner will pass it out when it's wrong a lot of the time because he doesn't know about a key feature of our hand...our stiff diamond! Yes LOTT is pretty dumb but having a stiff vs not having one is still a huge factor in competing to 3 over 3. Having good trumps and a good side suit are another factor. Partner will not magically always bid when it's right, he will assume we don't have a stiff diamond if he has 3 diamonds (a very likely scenario) because we didn't bid. He will play us for 4324 or whatever and bid accordingly. If we have a stiff diamond it's usually with bad trumps or a stiff K or stiff Q or something, it's not with this hand. So partner will definitely misevaluate a lot of the time.

My point was that your analysis should include something like "I have to bid because my partner's so likely to get this wrong." But either way, part of your analysis should involve what partner may and may not be able to do.

[bd71]

For resulters, here are the complete results for this hand...

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=4028-1311651901-22908494

 

An even larger proportion of the field than in our poll bid 3♠, which was oh so right on this hand. Woe unto me and the other passers/LOTT automatons...

[aguahombre]

Of course we still don't know if the other hand would have bid 3S had he been given the choice. (Or maybe I am the only one who couldn't find the companion hand).

[Zelandakh]

Click the link above aqua. Your partner is a robot and is not bidding 3S with A875/T84/QT/T984. Presumably a real-life partner of those that pass would bid on with this hand though.

[JLOGIC]

This was a good hand to post imo, this is a bread and butter bridge situation (especially matchpoints) that is not fancy but is the type of decision that comes up all the time and swings a lot of points.

[jdeegan]

:P Posting that hand on BBO is a cut above simply resulting. It shows that nearly all of a large duplicate field (which in most BBO events is a considerable cut above flight A in most US regional pairs events, imo) bid 2♠, then 3♠ in front of partner - granted a robot, but a fairly good player whose errors tend toward weirdness rather than weakness.

On reflection, I have to concede that 3♠ the first time is too much given the poor spot cards and the fact that my ♦ ace is not working. Still, an almost 3♠ bid with a stiff ♦ has to take the push to protect partner who will too often pass with a hand where 3♠ is right.