Matchpoint decision

[rduran1216]

Matchpoints, all white

 

AQ109x

KJ10x

xx

Ax

 

 

As dealer auction proceeds

 

1S p 2S 3D

?

[kenrexford]

3H

[Phil]

3♥ is an artificial game try.

 

I don't have a game try.

 

I pass.

[kenrexford]

3♥ is an artificial game try.

 

I don't have a game try.

 

I pass.

A six loser hand, plus all sorts of body and finesse options?, looks game-ish to me.

[aguahombre]

Gotta go with Phil on this one. Looks like an opening bid with five spades to me, and I don't get to start counting doubletons as distribution points in support of my own suit.

 

Pass.

[CSGibson]

3♠. The bid in front makes it more likely that useful honors will be onside, and the fact that righty has long diamonds increases the likelihood that partner's values are useful fitting ones. I'm willing to take the push to try for 140/170 instead of +50/-110

[akhare]

3♥ is tempting, but with the two quick losers in ♦, shape, and the scoring, it's 3♠ for me..

[gnasher]

Gotta go with Phil on this one. Looks like an opening bid with five spades to me, and I don't get to start counting doubletons as distribution points in support of my own suit.

Don't you count long cards in side suits as potential winners? Opposite a 3-card raise, this hand will often take a trick more than AQ109x KJ10 xx Axx.

[aguahombre]

Don't you count long cards in side suits as potential winners? Opposite a 3-card raise, this hand will often take a trick more than AQ109x KJ10 xx Axx.

Sure, but it looks as if partner might have given a limit raise if she had one, and we don't happen to use direct raises as particularly constructive either.

[han]

Agreements are relevant here. 3H is more attractive the stronger 2S is, and if double is a gametry and 3H shows hearts then that also speaks in favor of 3H.

 

With my agreements (2S somewhat constructive, 3H general game try but could be hearts) I'd bid 3H. If partner bids 4 (hearts or spades) I think we'll often have good play. If partner bids 3S, only one of 3S and 3D has to make for this to be right.

[dake50]

As I play a weak MAFIA system, this hand is DA above minimum.

But partner's 2S is not a 'good' 9 - having other bids to show

a constructive raise.

Clear pass on this semi-bal 14. Partner is still there.

[gking46]

Aaron: with Bill Schreiber as my partner we play that (when we have bid and raised a major and RHO has overcalled) double is the balanced GT and

(if there is room) a new suit is natural and GT. With that understanding, I would bid 3H in case partner has a decent 3-4-X-X hand and can raise to 4H.

[lalldonn]

It looks like a game try to me. The tens are really nice. I somewhat regret that it's a random rather than specific game try on this auction, but there isn't much I can do about it. On the other hand partner will probably make a good decision anyway since he will downgrade diamond honors.

[fromageGB]

Obviously depends on what your agreements are. For me, 2♠ is decidedly constructive, typically 7-10, and 3♥ shows hearts, good hand but not game forcing. 3♥ is a clear bid on this basis.

Pass if 2♠ could be weaker.

[phil_20686]

Seems random to answer when OP did not specify the range for 2S. People round my way play it from everything from 4-8 to 8-11. So it makes a difference.

[lalldonn]

Why can't we just answer bidding problems when every bid made was totally normal? He didn't define 1♠ either, maybe it shows 5-14 and therefore we have a slam try!

[phil_20686]

Why can't we just answer bidding problems when every bid made was totally normal? He didn't define 1♠ either, maybe it shows 5-14 and therefore we have a slam try!

 

I have no idea what you think the "normal" range for the 2S bid is. But I am 100% that the people who have answered this post will not agree. In fact, dake says 2S is "less than a good nine", but fromage says its 7-10 "decidedly constructive".

 

OP obviously wants the repliers to make a judgement call, so that he can hone is judgement. How can we do that when we dont know his ranges. There is a wide difference in style on this auction between different posters. For the first four years of my bridge life I never knew that people played this other than a simple raise of 5-9. Now its more common among my peers to play 8-11, and I regularly see other ranges.

[Phil]

This is in the EXPERT forum.

 

Everyone knows "EXPERTS" play it as 7 to 9.

[phil_20686]

This is in the EXPERT forum.

 

Everyone knows "EXPERTS" play it as 7 to 9.

 

Sometimes its hard to tell when you are joking. :)

[kenrexford]

This nuanced discussion of what Responder might have is making me laugh.

 

I have ♠AQ109x ♥KJ10x ♦xx ♣Ax

 

Let's give partner a 7-count in the form of ♠K, ♦A. Now, I can count 10 tricks if the diamond hook is working against the person who entered the three-level, assuming that I do not catch LHO with J-x-x-x in hearts. If pertner has both useful Kings, a six-count, I might also make 10 tricks if the hearts behave, if RHO has the heart Queen, and if I can get the third heart tricks somehow. If partner has the club King and diamond Ace, a six-count, I might be able to play hearts for no losers and trumps for one loser, or something like that, again getting to 10 tricks.

 

Thus, I need about 6-7 working HCP (cover cards) to make game reasonable. Add in the heart Queen or spade Jack, and my odds get even better.

 

The point, though, as to range is that we are in game range whatever Responder's maximum is, unless his maximum is 5 HCP, and who plays that?!?!?

 

The only debatable point, I would imagine, is whether Opener should actually bid 4♠, which seems reasonable if 2♠ promises constructive values. But, in that event 3♥ operates as a reasonable hedge against wasted values in diamonds and allows us to snoop about for a possible 4♥ contract if partner has 3♠/4♥.

[Phil]

 

This nuanced discussion of what Responder might have is making me laugh.

 

 

The laughs continue.

 

Let's give partner a 7-count in the form of ♠K, ♦A.

 

Yes, its reasonable to expect the ♦A in partner's hand instead of our RHO who came in at the three level.

 

Now, I can count 10 tricks if the diamond hook is working against the person who entered the three-level, assuming that I do not catch LHO with J-x-x-x in hearts.

 

??

 

If pertner has both useful Kings, a six-count, I might also make 10 tricks if the hearts behave, if RHO has the heart Queen, and if I can get the third heart tricks somehow.

 

I like the nested ifs here.

 

If partner has the club King and diamond Ace, a six-count, I might be able to play hearts for no losers and trumps for one loser, or something like that, again getting to 10 tricks.

 

The opponents will reject your claim.

 

The only debatable point, I would imagine, is whether Opener should actually bid 4♠, which seems reasonable if 2♠ promises constructive values. But, in that event 3♥ operates as a reasonable hedge against wasted values in diamonds and allows us to snoop about for a possible 4♥ contract if partner has 3♠/4♥.

 

Yes, most of that I would consider debatable.

[semeai]

Let's say the range for the 2♠ bid is A points (low end) to B points (high end).

 

Then the probability I'm bidding 3♥ (general game try) is:

 

Max(0,Min(1,1-.5(10-B)-.1(7-A)))

 

***

 

More seriously, this looks like a game try to me. I hope my matchpoint sensors aren't improperly aligned.

 

Added: There is a slight advantage of the game try, relative to our intuition. We aren't in 2♠, so there's no worry about losing the safety of the 2 level in exchange for a game try, and I'm fine competing here at all white.

[rduran1216]

I was surprised to see the player holding these cards sell out to 3S. Looked like a clear action to me. If we make a try and partner's values include something awful like KJx of diamonds then life sucks and we're playing 3S anyway. partner can have spade K and heart Ace can't he? or club K, heart Q, spade j? I think a game try is clear. hard to give partner values that aren't working if they're outside the diamond suit.

[JLOGIC]

Passing is just horrible. We must be good favorites to make 3S opposite the subset of hands partner will pass 3D out with. Defending 3D just seems like a disaster to me.

 

You can debate 3H vs 3S but the main point is you must bid with this hand.

[lalldonn]

Passing is just horrible. We must be good favorites to make 3S opposite the subset of hands partner will pass 3D out with. Defending 3D just seems like a disaster to me.

 

You can debate 3H vs 3S but the main point is you must bid with this hand.

Which of 3H or 3S do you prefer? Just curious