Matchpoint Bids

[BunnyGo]

This hand came up in a matchpoint game last night. You hold:

 

954, 65, J873, KQT4 Red vs White in third seat.

 

1C-(1H)-2C-(2D)

2H-(3D)-P-(P)

4C-(P)-P-(4D)

P-(P)-X-AP

 

Question 1: Do you agree with 2C? Is there a bid you prefer?

 

Question 2: What is partner showing with 2H?

 

Question 3: Do you agree with the double? If not is it because you think you think you don't need to protect against 4C making, because you should bid 5C, or because you expect 4D = to be par?

[han]

Question 1: Do you agree with 2C? Is there a bid you prefer?

 

2C seems clearcut.

 

Question 2: What is partner showing with 2H?

 

A strong hand not suitable for a different call such as 2S or 3H. It does not show values in hearts.

 

Question 3: Do you agree with the double? If not is it because you think you think you don't need to protect against 4C making, because you should bid 5C, or because you expect 4D = to be par?

 

Yes I agree with the the double. If I would pass, it would be that I expected 4D to make more often. These matchpoints considerations are overrated, I double because I think that they are going down. I think that they are going down because I think that they won't be able to deal with my trump length.

[billw55]

1. yes. It's now or never.

2. interest in game, looking for heart stopper

3. no, because I don't know if they are making or not, and because double may help them play it right. 70 years ago SJ Simon wrote that double gives declarer one trick; I can't afford it here. I pass; I certainly don't protect a partscore in 5 of a minor red on white.

[Fluffy]

2♣ is fine. The alternative is pass but I think I´d bid 2♣ also.

 

2♥ shows a strong hand with no better description avaible, since the opponents never get to hearts themselves its gfair to assume partner has 4 hearts, but the bidding doesn't imply it.

 

 

At first sight I though double was fine, but thinking more deeply, ♣KQ will be useless when partner is likely 3406, the heart honnors are missplaced, Jxxx will be or little use if opponents have 9 trumps, only positive thing is opponents will have to struggle through their 4-3 spade fit themselves with no side winners, and we can make 2 tricks there easilly.

 

I think 4♦ rates to make, and +100 won´t be much better than +50 anyway, so not doubling is fine. -130 will be also poor probably, but there might be some -200 to help our cause.

[han]

Partner is 3406??

[Fluffy]

3415 is also very likelly actually

[Zelandakh]

1a. Yes

1b. No

2. A game try and unsuitable for anything more descriptive

3. Yes, errrr, no! I think partner's most likely shape is 3316. To have his 3H bid this must mark them with spade values which will be cashing. I am hopeful of taking 2 spades, a diamond and a club. Having got this far I am now thinking that I may well not get my diamond trick if I double leaving us only 3 tricks, completely against all of my instincts. So while I would probably have doubled at the table I am exercising forum privilege and passing now instead. This is a good problem imho.

[wyman]

Out of curiosity, do the 2C bidders use 3C as mixed or weak? Does it make a difference?

 

Part of this discussion started because I thought that 2C was constructive (3C for us is weak), and I didn't think this hand was worth a constructive raise (values concentrated in clubs, 6HCP and flattish). I thought 3C was more appropriate.

 

I'm interested whether our difference of opinion is my poor judgment or systemic.

 

[edit: subsequently, then, I thought that X was an overstatement of the case after "stretching" to bid 2C, independent of the result on the hand.]

[mcphee]

I am not in love with 2C, but this is pairs and the entire feature of my hand, what little there is to call a feature.

 

2H I expect partner is showing a good hand interested in trying for 3N as a possible strain. I expect unbalanced.

 

Dble of 4D is not my choice, what ever partner thinks he has defensively just ain't so and I have ZERO defensive values, frankly I am delighted they did not bid game, which may well have more play than they think.

[JLOGIC]

I would never consider doubling 4D, and I am not one of those stodgy "I hate people who play matchpoints it is evil and not bridge" people, I am on board with ripping them at MP but I just don't see it here at all. If partner has a hand type like 4 quick tricks he could have ripped them himself. From my point of view it looks like hearts are onside if they need to be, all of my values are in clubs which is obviously bad, and doubling may indeed tell them how to play it if dummy takes the tap and they need to guess trumps. I just don't like my defensive prospects all that much.

[JLOGIC]

If I would pass, it would be that I expected 4D to make more often. These matchpoints considerations are overrated, I double because I think that they are going down.

 

A Freaking Men. Forget about figuring out what the field will do and what you need to protect, etc etc, it is really a bad way to approach playing bridge. How do we know if the field has competed to 4C, or if the field has competed to 4D over 4C? We may be in a good position (we aren't defending 3D), or a bad position (we aren't in 4C). We don't really know. All we can try to do is solve the problem at hand, are we usually beating 4D or not. Now, it is a good general rule that when they are white the upside of doubling them and beating them one is less than the downside of doubling them when they make, e.g. if we thought we were beating them 1 55 % of the time (lol), and they were making 45 % we should not double them. But again, trying to be that precise about everything is pretty dumb, just remember as a general guideline that these doubles have more upside if they're vul, but still double them if you think they're going down often.

 

If you are thinking about the other factors more than "how often am I going to beat this contract" then you're doing it wrong. Just focus on that one question, and trying to solve it the best you can, and you will be fine.

 

If people only learned one thing from everything I wrote on BBF I would hope it would be this one.

[capn1100]

Out of curiosity, do the 2C bidders use 3C as mixed or weak? Does it make a difference?

 

Part of this discussion started because I thought that 2C was constructive (3C for us is weak), and I didn't think this hand was worth a constructive raise (values concentrated in clubs, 6HCP and flattish). I thought 3C was more appropriate.

 

I'm interested whether our difference of opinion is my poor judgment or systemic.

 

[edit: subsequently, then, I thought that X was an overstatement of the case after "stretching" to bid 2C, independent of the result on the hand.]

 

Hi wyman! 2+2 shoutout!

 

I, too, think 3C is weak, and I'd bid it here. It's the level we're certain to want to compete to anyway, our good trumps mean they'll have a terrible time beating it EXCEPT on power 9and thus unlikely to X), and it lets partner know not to count on us for anything on defense. The only minor defect in it is the lack of a fifth club, but partner will have 4+ a huge majority of the time anyway!

 

(Edit to add: I'm only doubling 4D if I know we really really need a couple of tops.)

[han]

The urban dictionary says it's a freaking man.

[Yu18772]

1. Yes, to wayman's question 3C is weak, with 5+ clubs for me

2. 2H is looking for NT

3. No way. I wouldn't double 5♦. My partner would have doubled if he had 3-4 quick defensive tricks, and I dont have any. All their finesses in majors (if needed) are onside.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

[BunnyGo]

Thanks for all the replies. Lots of good things to think about next time. Here's the hand (sadly 4DX made on the nose...I think pass was the par bid).

[Fluffy]

Partner is 3406??

Ha!, take that :P

[han]

I trusted partner over the opponents, wyman let me down.

[wyman]

I trusted partner over the opponents, wyman let me down.

 

:(

 

So I did think that 2H was showing and looking for 3N. Given partner's club raise (which again, I thought was constructive), it looks like we'll have play for 3N if partner has QJxx or Kxxx of clubs and the ace of diamonds. With neither side bidding spades, it's likely that they cash at most 4 spades off the top -- if spades are even led. Yes, we might get to 3N going down if pard has the DK, but the defense still has to get it right.

 

2C competitive doesn't seem that useful, since it's not eating up any space. What's the minimum hand with which you'd bid 2C?

 

From the commentary, it seems people disagree with 2H -- not just that I'm not good enough for it, but with my intended meaning. Maybe I need a lesson in competitive auctions. I thought when you'd bid and raised a suit and opps have bid 2 suits naturally, you cuebid the one where you've got stuff to show stuff (or with an alternate plan, of course).

 

It seems I'm way off base here. What's the preferred style?

[JLOGIC]

I would never bid 3C with only 4 clubs, we may have only 7 or 8 clubs. Playing 3C with 7 or 8 clubs and less than half the deck and 2 balanced hands vulnerable would probably be a bad idea. I am just bidding 2C and passing throughout if my partner passes. 2C may not eat up much space but it allows partner to decide whether to compete to 3C or not.

[han]

Wyman, your bidding is not bad at all. Partner could certainly have a hand where 3NT is cold and I don't see a better way of reaching it than starting with 2H. When you bid 4C over 3D, I should have realized what you were up to. My bad for doubling.

 

Of course, when Fluffy came after me I had to blame someone and I thought you weren't around.