Matchpoint game, who pushed too hard?

[humilities]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqt5hj53dk64ct65&n=sj9742ht2dat85cak&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sd2np4sppp]266|200|2NT= limit or better, 4 trump[/hv]

 

Matchpoints, this low board really dragged us down at the end. Who pushed too hard?

 

Side question: why do Meckstroth/Rodwell's 22 point games never seem to turn out like this :P

[PhilKing]

I need an "other" option. You need a mixed raise after 1M-X.

 

FWIW, North's evaluation was fine.

[Vampyr]

North has been shown a limit raise or better. Where are the extras that justify a jump to game?

[Cyberyeti]

North has been shown a limit raise or better. Where are the extras that justify a jump to game?

 

Both are at fault, give S a real limit raise like KQ10x, Qx, Axx, Jxxx and game still fails, but S clearly counts points without engaging brain, this is nowhere near a limit raise. We have the arrangement that 1♠-X-1N is a good raise to 2 so I'd do that, otherwise you need a mixed raise. Over 2N I would use a 3♦ long suit game try which I'd decline at the speed of light with the S hand.

 

I haven't voted as I think both at fault, S more than N.

[mikeh]

Both overbid

 

I am not a big fan of mixed raises at the best of times, but the S hand is a much better mixed than limit raise...indeed, it isn't even close to a limit imo.

 

It would be useful to play methods over the double. For me, I play transfers starting with redouble, which shows a balanced, notrump type of hand, 8+ hcp. So 2♥ would show a sound raise to 2♠, which is what this is worth (2♠ would show a weak raise).

 

Having said that, the bad call by S should merely have got the partnership to the 3-level, which seems safe enough.

 

N committed a basic error in hand evaluation.

 

Having 5 controls is a good thing, and often justifies the taking of a rosy view, but it is very important to look to where the cards are. High cards in short suits are not worth as much as are high cards in long suits, where the high cards can help establish the low cards as length winners. Here, the club AK are not worth as much as they would be were they in long suits.

 

 

In addition, even giving the club cards more weight than I think they deserve, we have the same flat 12 count we opened. Yes, it was a clear opening bid (imo) but that doesn't make it a hand with extras, and the limit raise asks us to bid game if we have some extras. We don't.

 

Finally, the Losing Trick Count can be a reasonably good metric in close situations. I don't, actually, consider this to be close, but if you did, then count the losers. A LTC of 7 suggests a minimum hand. One shouldn't accept the limit with that sort of LTC. Were the LTC to be 6 (such as Jxxxx xx AQxx AK) then one ought to accept the raise.

 

Both players misbid, but the partnership should have survived S's call, since N had no semblance of acceptance

 

As for the bonus question, about Meckwell, I suggest you take a look at the hands on which they (and other top pairs) bid 'light high card' games. They do NOT bid games just because they hold a combined 22 or 23 hcp. They do stretch, a lot, for 3N, but when they bid light major games, they do it on sound principles, based (usually, it seems to me) on shape and degrees of fit.

[PhilKing]

I'm not suggesting bidding by numbers, but North has six losers according to the original LTC pamphlet, since you have two more aces than queens.

 

Leaving aside the LTC ....

 

Good controls - check. Decent shape - check. Good honour structure - check (the spade holding has improved). Hand will play well (guesses will probably be easy) - check.

 

♠Axxx♥xxx♦KJx♣xxx is a decent game on the bidding and benefits from all four of the factors I listed.

[broze]

Both are at fault, give S a real limit raise like KQ10x, Qx, Axx, Jxxx and game still fails

 

You've given South one of North's aces.

 

South overbid much much more than North, but having said that North has a pretty simple 3D bid. So 80% blame to S; 20% to North.

[inquiry]

South 2NT was a considerable overbid. He has 9 points counting a likely useless heart JACK and the worst possible distribution. A constructive raise would be better if available.

 

North has less than an accept of a limit raise, especially if this partnership considers the south hand a limit raise. So north overbid as well. To see why, let's give south the club Queen so his limit raise isn't so outrageous... (KQxx Jxx Kxx Qxxx)... you still lose a spade, two hearts and a diamond.

 

22 point games have a lot more chances if at least one of the partners have shortness and even more so if both have shortness. Note the lack of "distribution" on these two flat hands. Perhaps that might account for why Meckstroth/Rodwell's 22 point games never seem to turn out like this

[mikeh]

I'm not suggesting bidding by numbers, but North has six losers according to the original LTC pamphlet, since you have two more aces than queens.

 

Leaving aside the LTC ....

 

Good controls - check. Decent shape - check. Good honour structure - check (the spade holding has improved). Hand will play well (guesses will probably be easy) - check.

 

♠Axxx♥xxx♦KJx♣xxx is a decent game on the bidding and benefits from all four of the factors I listed.

Talk about cherry picking a responding hand, lol. Nothing wasted in either of our doubletons, and a probably working diamond J, and even then it isn't a good game after the takeout double, which increases the chances that 4th seat has KQx in trump.

 

Why would S hold the hand you want rather than KQxx KJx xxx QJx? A full (?) 12 count on which game has no play.

 

Of course, that construction is as artificial as yours. The point is that one cannot analyze what to do by mentally constructing hands. We, as humans, lack the ability to do so objectively. If we want to bid, we will tend to generate hands where game seems ok. If we want to pass, we generate hands when game is poor. That's why simulations, if and when we can agree on the constraints, offer assistance. Absent that, we have to have some rules, tempered by experience.

 

To me, your 'good honour structure' check is simply wrong. The club cards are a negative valuation factor, not a positive one, and as noted the spade holding hasn't improved much on the auction. Plus, at the end of the day this is still a minimum opening bid.

 

Btw, the auction says that the spade holding has NOT improved, or not by much, since any missing honours are likely to be sitting over partner's cards, and the suit rates to split less favourably than the a priori odds. Imagine Axxx or Kxxx in dummy. With silent opps, we'd have some degree of cautious optimism. After the takeout double, the odds have increased that the suit lies poorly. The same is true for AQxx, where the chances of no losers in the suit have gone down with the double.

[BillHiggin]

I'm not suggesting bidding by numbers, but North has six losers according to the original LTC pamphlet, since you have two more aces than queens.

 

 

May I humbly offer an opinion on LTC evaluation (which I believe to be a fine tool for I/A level players)? A factor which I have only seen mentioned once is that LTC greatly overvalues doubletons. This is OK for the first doubleton because that effectively just increases the negative value of 4333 shapes (and those hands need all the scorn we can muster). But, for hands containing 2 or 3 doubletons, the result is not pretty. If you are evaluating hands with LTC, count extra doubletons as negative factors!

 

On this hand, I would count one negative for the second doubleton, another for the concentration of strength in a short suit, and then a positive for the favorable A/Q count - resulting in a net negative adjustment.

 

Note that the responding hand has 9 losers plus a negative adjustment for the excess queen, so like everyone else says - NOT a limit raise at all! My blame split would be about 67% to south for a gross overbid and 33% to north for a lesser overbid. They are not equally at fault, but there is no innocence to be seen.

[Winstonm]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqt5hj53dk64ct65&n=sj9742ht2dat85cak&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sd2np4sppp]266|200|2NT= limit or better, 4 trump[/hv]

 

Matchpoints, this low board really dragged us down at the end. Who pushed too hard?

 

Side question: why do Meckstroth/Rodwell's 22 point games never seem to turn out like this :P

 

Answer to side question: they don't overbid on flat hands.

[PhilKing]

To see why, let's give south the club Queen so his limit raise isn't so outrageous... (KQxx Jxx Kxx Qxxx)... you still lose a spade, two hearts and a diamond.

 

 

That's 14 cards, so too many losers for a limit raise, but if pard has ♥Jx you are in great shape. If the take-out doubler is 1444 you probably make on a minor suit squeeze (don't tell me the defence lead diamonds in time).

[Vampyr]

I haven't voted as I think both at fault, S more than N.

 

If the partnership don't have transfers or ways to show a mixed raise available, perhaps this hand qualifies as a 2NT bid. If so, North needs to take that into account.

[Cyberyeti]

You've given South one of North's aces.

 

South overbid much much more than North, but having said that North has a pretty simple 3D bid. So 80% blame to S; 20% to North.

 

OK, I thought N had Kxxx rather than Axxx, but KQ10x, Qx, Kxx, Jxxx (or even ♣Qxxx) still loses 4 tricks unless you're very lucky.

[kenrexford]

My knee-jerk reaction is to agree that North is crazy too. But, I'm not so sure. As the cards lie, it is really tough to lose more than 4 tricks, despite partner having essentially nothing interesting. Give partner the very slight change of a doubleton diamond, or the spade Ace instead of the Queen, or the diamond Jack instead of the heart Jack, and game looks much better.

 

When looking at that North hand from a LTC perspective, I also see some adjustments up. Five controls with a 12-HCP hand suggests a +1 adjustment to HCP count and to LTC. The diamond suit has body. The known 9-fit in spades reduces the odds of losing the number of honors partner lacks somewhat.

 

I am sufficiently convinced now that South should take the charge here.

 

 

 

[ArtK78]

Both overbid

 

I am not a big fan of mixed raises at the best of times, but the S hand is a much better mixed than limit raise...indeed, it isn't even close to a limit imo.

 

It would be useful to play methods over the double. For me, I play transfers starting with redouble, which shows a balanced, notrump type of hand, 8+ hcp. So 2♥ would show a sound raise to 2♠, which is what this is worth (2♠ would show a weak raise).

 

Having said that, the bad call by S should merely have got the partnership to the 3-level, which seems safe enough.

 

N committed a basic error in hand evaluation.

 

Having 5 controls is a good thing, and often justifies the taking of a rosy view, but it is very important to look to where the cards are. High cards in short suits are not worth as much as are high cards in long suits, where the high cards can help establish the low cards as length winners. Here, the club AK are not worth as much as they would be were they in long suits.

 

 

In addition, even giving the club cards more weight than I think they deserve, we have the same flat 12 count we opened. Yes, it was a clear opening bid (imo) but that doesn't make it a hand with extras, and the limit raise asks us to bid game if we have some extras. We don't.

 

Finally, the Losing Trick Count can be a reasonably good metric in close situations. I don't, actually, consider this to be close, but if you did, then count the losers. A LTC of 7 suggests a minimum hand. One shouldn't accept the limit with that sort of LTC. Were the LTC to be 6 (such as Jxxxx xx AQxx AK) then one ought to accept the raise.

 

Both players misbid, but the partnership should have survived S's call, since N had no semblance of acceptance

 

As for the bonus question, about Meckwell, I suggest you take a look at the hands on which they (and other top pairs) bid 'light high card' games. They do NOT bid games just because they hold a combined 22 or 23 hcp. They do stretch, a lot, for 3N, but when they bid light major games, they do it on sound principles, based (usually, it seems to me) on shape and degrees of fit.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

And I consider the North hand to have 7 losers by MLTC, which I use routinely in evaluating these types of situations. But, as Mike says, this is not a close situation.

[Zelandakh]

May I humbly offer an opinion on LTC evaluation (which I believe to be a fine tool for I/A level players)? A factor which I have only seen mentioned once is that LTC greatly overvalues doubletons.

Compared with 5/3/1 the LTC overvalues doubletons and singleton by 50%, and voids by 80% (ie 9/4.5/1.5). This is primarily because it does not take account of possible wastage. I would also tend to disagree with your assertion of it being a good tool for I/A players. I think it is a poor method that is the equivalent of a distorted and inflexible hcp method while pretending to be something different. Learning to adjust Milton effectively is far more beneficial to I/A players and also takes them further along to the even more subtle adjustments that we sometimes see in Mike's posts.

[monikrazy]

South's bid is way worse. 75-90% of the blame.

[MrAce]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqt5hj53dk64ct65&n=sj9742ht2dat85cak&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sd2np4sppp]266|200|2NT= limit or better, 4 trump[/hv]

 

Matchpoints, this low board really dragged us down at the end. Who pushed too hard?

 

Side question: why do Meckstroth/Rodwell's 22 point games never seem to turn out like this :P

 

Both pushed hard IMO. But at least S has an excuse, but it's not a limit raise hand to me. I can't even find an excuse for N though.(at MP)

 

Meckwell do not bid like this. Especially at MP. Not that they play MP together a lot (mostly clients) When it comes to bid borderline games and stretching almost all pros take the low road at MP.

[msjennifer]

The 2 NT bid was the worst bid ,if not silly.The hand has 8 plus losers, no ruffing values.The hand is also not suitable for NT from his side.It is not a hand where redouble and then bidding spades will show defensive values.With a nine card fit and a very likely singleton in either opponents hand the spade KQ are useless in defense unless the opponents chose to play in NT.Since there is only one possible defensive trick ,no ruffling values,a flat hand it is sensible to make a bid of only 2Spade.If opener really has values which means 6 losers only he is sure to make a SST or LST and not just jump to 4 spades as in poppa-momma bridge.As stated in the given example the 4 Spade bid is poppa momma bid.A bid of 3 Spades is the right bid since the spade suit is poor,no goodish second suit and no other extra values at all.Opener also has to share the blame although 80% fault is with the responder.

[mcphee]

South is thinking he has a limit raise, I'm thinking it isn't so. For me this is a constructive raise and South got carried away thinking because he had strong trumps partner hand was outside and he wanted to him him bid it. N while holding some shape should really take the low road playing pairs. Being agressive at pairs pays off some days, but being conservative pays off more often.

[Trump Echo]

I find South at fault.

 

If I held South's hand, I'd have jumped to 3 Spades directly as a preempt after the double. Partner would pass.

[m1cha]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqt5hj53dk64ct65&n=sj9742ht2dat85cak&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sd2np4sppp]266|200|2NT= limit or better, 4 trump[/hv]

 

Matchpoints, this low board really dragged us down at the end. Who pushed too hard?

 

In the system officially played in Germany, you add 2 pts to the S hand for the nine-card fit because it is often worth a trick. Considering this, I find S's call acceptable although the value of the ♥J is questionable.

 

N on the other hand should have clear extras for going to game but has

- minimum HCP count

- the first doubleton is standard, not an extra

- for the other doubleton to count positive, you want AK in a long suit

- the trump suit is bad

- on the positive side, just a good count of Aces and Tens.

 

To my opintion, if you want equal blame to both partners, you should bid

1♠ (X) 2NT (p) 3♦ (p) 3♠ (p) p (p)

and make it. ;)

 

By the way, the contract is not that bad. Just consider the J is in ♦ rather than ♥: You will probably make 4♠ because you find the ♦Q.

[lrussell]

Both were pushy but South's ace-less, 4-3-3-3 pancake 9 count is not a limit raise. South to blame.

[steve2005]

South not even close to having their bid.

 

North pretty close to having their bid but just hate having 7 pts tied up in doubleton ♣

 

What North needs is a artificial 3♣/3♦ bid asking for a good limit raise or maybe even as a natural game try