Just how crazy was this?

[akwoo]

[hv=pc=n&n=sj4hkj84d9ckt9864&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=ppp1np2hp2sp2npp]133|200[/hv]

 

(Opponents are playing standard 2/1 - so there are exactly 15 hcp to my right (or a very good 14), probably 9 hcp to my left, and spades are split precisely 5-2.)

 

Just how crazy is a 3♣ bid here at matchpoints? Is there a reasonable chance that 3♣ will make or will go down only 1 with 2N making?

 

We were up against the only good pair in a small weak field, so I'm happy to bid if it'll work out 40% of the time.

[steve2005]

At matchpoints most anything might work.

But the big danger is -2 doubled for 300 for a dead bottom.

The opponent do known their strength and don't have a fit.

[manudude03]

I suspect it would go -1 often enough to work out, but there are a couple of important questions to check before doing so. Did partner have a weak 2 in diamonds, or a 2-suited 2S available? If so, it increases the odds that it will work out. However, it does also improve the odds that 2NT isn't making.

[helene_t]

2NT is the worst contract to save against (ok, 5NT is worse).

 

If you want to randomize because you are up against the best pair, then here are some better options:

 

- open 3♣

- bid 3♣ (or some H+c two-suited bid) over 1NT

- double 2NT for penalties ? Not crazy, with partner's four spades and likely diamond length it is not breaking well for them.

- try to find an anti-field lead against 2NT.

[akwoo]

I suspect it would go -1 often enough to work out, but there are a couple of important questions to check before doing so. Did partner have a weak 2 in diamonds, or a 2-suited 2S available? If so, it increases the odds that it will work out. However, it does also improve the odds that 2NT isn't making.

 

Partner did have a weak 2 in diamonds available as an opening bid. 2♠ after the transfer would have been some sort of distributional takeout on meta-principles, but partner might very well forget such a bid is available, though he wouldn't misunderstand if I bid it.

 

(Yes, I know 2N is supposed to be a bad contract to save against. But it's worth questioning conventional wisdom once in a while.)

[WesleyC]

The fact that you're considering balancing into the opponents invitational, non-fit auction is proof that you should just open 3C in first seat!

[NickRW]

Is there a reasonable chance that 3♣ will make or will go down only 1 with 2N making?

 

We were up against the only good pair in a small weak field, so I'm happy to bid if it'll work out 40% of the time.

 

I'd think it at least as likely that dummy, with ♣AQx, takes a flier at 3NT if you intervene.

 

If you want to randomize in the round where you rate to get poorer scores anyway, I'm with Helene and might lead a heart.

[gszes]

how do you think you will fare if p has nothing much in clubs to help you (xx)? the opps will make no mistake in their decision to x or not. How do you think you will fare if p has Qx

and will it be better than a club lead against 2n? Once you take just those 2 things into consideration the odds of NOT bidding start to look awfully nice. In order for 3c to work we either need to make or need to have the opps make which is no guarantee even if p has only xx in clubs. SOTM might convince me to try 3c over 1n but hard to imagine it being a great idea at this point of the auction.

[dboxley]

[hv=pc=n&n=sj4hkj84d9ckt9864&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=ppp1np2hp2sp2npp]133|200[/hv]

 

(Opponents are playing standard 2/1 - so there are exactly 15 hcp to my right (or a very good 14), probably 9 hcp to my left, and spades are split precisely 5-2.)

 

Just how crazy is a 3♣ bid here at matchpoints? Is there a reasonable chance that 3♣ will make or will go down only 1 with 2N making?

 

We were up against the only good pair in a small weak field, so I'm happy to bid if it'll work out 40% of the time.

 

You should have bid directly over 1NT while you could do so at the 2 level, now you have to punt. You dug your own grave.

[1eyedjack]

You should have bid directly over 1NT while you could do so at the 2 level, now you have to punt. You dug your own grave.

The laws of bridge may allow you to bid at the 2 level directly over 1N. Your system may dictate otherwise.

 

Not that this is conclusive. If forced to bid at (or commit to) the 3 level direct over 1N, perhaps still best done immediately.

 

Systemic defence to 1N may be relevant. If (say) 2C were to show 4+H and a potentially longer side suit, as is sometimes used in the wild, ...

[akwoo]

Maybe I should've bid 3♣ over 1N, but I'm convinced an immediate 2♣ (natural) would've been wrong. It doesn't take up bidding space, and partner doesn't know to preemptively auto-raise with club support. The only advantage to an immediate 3♣ is that I might (but might not) avoid an auto-double (but partner might unfortunately take me for a near opening hand). Also, at that point, I don't know that partner has around half the missing high cards.

 

I'm a little leery of opening 3♣ with a decent 4 card major. After all, the weak field can work for us if we have the cards and we're the only ones declaring the right contract.

 

(I'm playing with someone who would've been a good bidder in 1965. It's a challenge adapting to his system (which is about halfway between Goren and SAYC), not so much in knowing what bids mean as in psychologically accepting sitting for average-minus on a lot more hands than I usually have to. We're in a small remote town, hence no real choices for either of us.)

 

Some of your strategies for randomizing are overestimating the field. You're thinking that the other pairs will play 2N and not handle the bad split as well. Given the field, it's quite possible the other contracts are 1N, 3N, 2H, and 3S (all by E/W), and in that case, we likely have a 12.5% before the first trick at either 2N or 2NX, no matter what our lead is. :huh:

 

But really, the title of the thread is quite accurate. I didn't exactly bid 3♣ seriously, since one can't exactly take such a club game too seriously, and we've agreed that I'm allowed a couple stupid competitive bids a session out of my frustration at his system. I'm just wondering roughly where between 10% and 60% such an action is.

[Phil]

Balancing into a non-fit auction when the opponents have 24 points doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

[rmnka447]

If you were going to compete, it should have been directly over 1 NT. Competing now gives the opponents a fielder's choice. Against weak opponents, you might get away with it, but a good pair is more likely to make the best decision if you step in now.

 

Certainly you had enough distribution and enough points for a direct bid over 1 NT. Whether it right to bid 2 ♣ or 3 ♣ is up to you. By directly competing, you make the opponents decide what to do without much information. Putting them immediately to a guess is usually a good thing as they may choose the wrong option.

 

One thing to consider is whether the other pairs playing your way are likely to compete over 1 NT. In a weak field, it might be a little more unpredictable, but they'd probably be a bit more unlikely to bid. If most pass, then passing now is likely to get an average or an average- at worst. Playing average against the best pair playing the other direction is likely to gain on the field. If you couple it with beating up on the weak pairs, you're usually following a winning strategy at matchpoints.