Matchpoint bidding question 1

[Jinksy]

(full disclosure - the hands I'm about to post are from a live competition, which I've just submitted an entry to, so please don't specify if you know where they're from, or use the replies here to inform your entry. I'm posting here because I'm impatient to discuss them, and also curious to see in advance how much the most popular calls here/those by the strongest players match the quiz-setter's opinion when it's revealed)

 

Matchpoints, basic system is Acol, so your opening promised 4♣:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s7hk872dk6ckqj542&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c(Showing%204%2B)p1hp]133|200[/hv]

[eagles123]

I worry that bidding 3s or 4h could get pd over excited so I settle for 3h but really not sure

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=s7hk872dk6ckqj542&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c(Showing%204%2B)p1hp]133|200|

(full disclosure - the hands I'm about to post are from a live competition, which I've just submitted an entry to, so please don't specify if you know where they're from, or use the replies here to inform your entry. I'm posting here because I'm impatient to discuss them, and also curious to see in advance how much the most popular calls calls here/those by the strongest players match the quiz-setters opinion when it's revealed)

Matchpoints, basic system is Acol, so your opening promised 4♣:[/hv]

IMO 4♣ = 10, 4♥ = 9, 3♥ = 8, 3♠ = 7. Partner probably has ♠ but it's just possible that an opponent has them and is about to wake up so pre-emption seems sensible. Also, you have about 5 losers so you're worth game

[helene_t]

In a weak notrump system 2h already shows extras so this one is just barely worth 3.

[Jinksy]

Heh, I was expecting be at the cravener end of the spectrum with 2♥, though I didn't realise by how much. To me at MPs, anything more than 3♥ seems really overdoing it on this aceless wonder.

 

If P can't raise 3 to 4, I really doubt we want to be in it. I went gentle into that good night on the grounds that giving P the ♥ and ♣ aces and out, we have less than a 50% shot at game, esp after wrongsiding for a D lead. If he has both of those and anything extra (a fifth H, say), I'd expect him to have a look at game on most hands, and I'll obviously cooperate with that.

 

The ♠ silence also worries me. Sure, you can construct hands where P has little in the suit and neither opp has a bid (esp if P has the ♠ ace), but I think on the auction so far, P is heavy favourite to have a few values in ♠s, which he's surely going to overrate if I just jump to 3h[e].

 

Lastly, what if he tries for a slam? If I've bid 3♥, I'll start to feel pretty sick about my hand if cue cues eg 3♠. Do I sign straight off in 4♥, eating up all his cueing space? Or do I cooperate, and risk ending up at the five level off two keycards and needing things to behave well to avoid losing a third?

 

At teams it's a 3♥ bid for me (I still don't rate out chances in 4 if P can't even raise this at teams), but at pairs it feels like too much can go wrong. It's close, but I'm sticking with 2♥ until I hear a decent argument to be less of a wuss.

[Trinidad]

In a weak notrump system 2h already shows extras so this one is just barely worth 3.

I don't think it is worth 3 (in a weak NT context).

 

Rik

[mikeh]

We have no trump texture and no Aces and are playing a weak 1N opening bid. I don't understand, at mps, anything more than 2♥. I know the LTC suggests more but if partner can't move over 2♥, the lack of action by the opps suggests he has weak trump and/or spade wastage.

 

Meanwhile, if I bid 3♥ and he gets excited, the lack of Aces and secondary heart cards risks a minus score for no good reason, while if he shows life over 2♥, I can cooperate with enthusiasm, having limited my hand.

 

The odds seem pretty good that he will be bidding on.

 

We may miss the occasional decent game or slam but at mps these will be more than offset by the pluses we score when aggressive bidding generates minuses,

[Fluffy]

We have no trump texture and no Aces and are playing a weak 1N opening bid. I don't understand, at mps, anything more than 2♥. I know the LTC suggests more but if partner can't move over 2♥, the lack of action by the opps suggests he has weak trump and/or spade wastage.

 

I have very slim experience in weak NT/ACOL context where 3 card raises are possible, but don't we have about 2 more tricks than an average 1345 hand?

[rhm]

We have no trump texture and no Aces and are playing a weak 1N opening bid. I don't understand, at mps, anything more than 2♥. I know the LTC suggests more but if partner can't move over 2♥, the lack of action by the opps suggests he has weak trump and/or spade wastage.

 

Meanwhile, if I bid 3♥ and he gets excited, the lack of Aces and secondary heart cards risks a minus score for no good reason, while if he shows life over 2♥, I can cooperate with enthusiasm, having limited my hand.

 

The odds seem pretty good that he will be bidding on.

 

We may miss the occasional decent game or slam but at mps these will be more than offset by the pluses we score when aggressive bidding generates minuses,

If partner does not move over 2♥ you will not be allowed to play there.

I like the preemptive effect of 3♥ and if partner bids over 3♥ game should have play.

I understand that both opponents have passed already but I still prefer the slight overbid to the slight underbid.

The way I count losers this hand has 6.5 losers - not five, which I consider crazy - and this does not suggest more than 3♥.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Siegmund]

I voted 3H, but I am much closer to a forcing 3S or 4C call than I am to anything weaker.

[WesleyC]

I think the main issue here is that ACOL sucks. Given that you need to raise partner to 2H at MPs holding [x KQx AQxx JTxxx] you've already lost all the benefits of a constructive 2H bid.

[Cthulhu D]

This hand is imho the hardest in the set. It is so tricky and my desire to bid 2.5H so strong, it makes me want to play 3D as an artificial gadget so I can have 3 ways to raise and allocate this to the middle bucket. I don't want to force to game, but am torn between 2H (which is excessively sandbagging as WesleyC points out), and 3H which is excessively optimistic.

 

I really have no idea.

 

What would 3D be in ACOL? Assuming it's some sort of mini splinter for diamonds, I think 3H is a bit clearer as it implies a spade stiff maybe?

[mcphee]

If you are playing weak NT isn't a major raise in the strong NT range? Kokish is a weak NT lover and uses a toy for the responder to find out about the raise. This is a nice hand but in a pairs game I make a simple 2H raise.

[whereagles]

Seems like a simple 3♥ to me. Certainly more than a min because of the superb shape. Certainly not a max either, so 3 is spot-on.

[Jinksy]

This hand is imho the hardest in the set. It is so tricky and my desire to bid 2.5H so strong, it makes me want to play 3D as an artificial gadget so I can have 3 ways to raise and allocate this to the middle bucket. I don't want to force to game, but am torn between 2H (which is excessively sandbagging as WesleyC points out), and 3H which is excessively optimistic.

 

I really have no idea.

 

What would 3D be in ACOL? Assuming it's some sort of mini splinter for diamonds, I think 3H is a bit clearer as it implies a spade stiff maybe?

 

Yeah, I agree - definitely the one I'm least confident about. 3♦ would probably most frequently be a GF splinter. But 3♥ could be a balanced 17-19ish hand, so doesn't say anything about ♠ shortage.

[Cthulhu D]

Yeah, I agree - definitely the one I'm least confident about. 3♦ would probably most frequently be a GF splinter. But 3♥ could be a balanced 17-19ish hand, so doesn't say anything about ♠ shortage.

 

Ugh. This is an insoluble problem for the system. I've voted for 3H but with no great conviction. I guess 3H is only 17-19 balanced if I am 2=4=2=5 exactly, so it is likely I have a stiff. If I ever play ACOL remind me to agree that in this situation 3D would be an invitational+ splinter, then partner would know it is most likely I have a stiff spade.

[Jinksy]

Yeah, it seems weird to me to play splinters below three of the relevant suit as GF, but that seems to be by far the most common treatment.

[gszes]

Assuming 3h is the "standarish", please bid game if you are near the top

of a minimum, response then by all means make that bid since the normal

majority of the time you will only bid game when p has a decent hand and

mostly only go down when p has a ton of wasted spade values (life bites

that way).

 

Another consideration for the 3h bid---our hand is hardly loaded with power

(especially defensive) so the 3h bid (which has a wide range of power) can be

a very effective preemptive tool if p decides to pass. Rhm points out the rather

slim chance of 2h ever surviving so I think it a somewhat short sighted to think

we might gain MP very much when the opps let us settle in 2h (I cannot remember

the last time I played 2M that was not a balance:)

 

When we bid 3h and p wants to try slamming it is unlikely they will be disappointed

with our every suit controlled and source of tricks hand.

[Cthulhu D]

Yeah, it seems weird to me to play splinters below three of the relevant suit as GF, but that seems to be by far the most common treatment.

 

Jeff goldsmith mentions as an aside in a problem set on his site that where there are two splinters available (like here) he prefers the cheapest to be inv or tons of extras and the more expensive to be minimum game force. This is a great idea IMHO. He also notes it is Laws proof in the sense that you can never be constrained by partners hesitation.

[Jinksy]

Jeff goldsmith mentions as an aside in a problem set on his site that where there are two splinters available (like here) he prefers the cheapest to be inv or tons of extras and the more expensive to be minimum game force. This is a great idea IMHO. He also notes it is Laws proof in the sense that you can never be constrained by partners hesitation.

 

Playing normal systems, I always play single-jump shifts of 1M opening as split range splinters by preference to any other pick-up method. Far better than Bergen, IMO.

[Cthulhu D]

Sorry, I meant he is suggesting:

 

1C-1H-3D: Invitational or GF splinter

 

1C-1H-4D: Minimum GF splinter.

[Jinksy]

Yeah I know, but the principle seems to be similar. Why commit yourself to a GF when you could jump a level higher, sign off in 3M, use Frivolous/Serious 3N and eventually sign off in 4M to partition your hand strength? Meanwhile mini-splinters can be really nice for finding (or avoiding) thin games and occasionally slams.

[whereagles]

Playing normal systems, I always play single-jump shifts of 1M opening as split range splinters by preference to any other pick-up method. Far better than Bergen, IMO.

 

bergen sucks anyway.. lol

[kgr]

I play that new suits by opener are forcing and jumps are splinter; 12-14 or 18-19.

Playing that I would bid 2♠ here.

(otherwise 3♥)

[nige1]

The way I count losers this hand has 6.5 losers - not five, which I consider crazy -

You hold ♠ x ♥ K x x x ♦ K x ♣ K Q J x x x, in support of ♥.

Please elucidate further, Rainer,.