No Point Being In Five Of A Minor At Matchpoints

[eagles123]

[hv=pc=n&w=s8642h6daq984cj73&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=2cp2dp3cp3dp3np4cp5cp6cppp]133|200[/hv]

 

 

spots are guesses. Form of scoring MP. If it's relevant West is much stronger than East, although neither are amazing.

 

there was a long hesitation after the 4c bid - this pair would almost certainly play 4N as blackwood/keycard in this auction if it matters.

 

I didn't call TD because we were doing ***** anyway and I couldn't really be bothered, plus I tend not to call director in club duplicate anyway unless it's something outrageous (overcalling 2s vul after 15-17 1n (BIT p) p on a 5422 5 count springs to mind)

 

anyway my question on this is two fold

 

1) your opinion on 6c bid

2) when putting down dummy, W made a comment along the lines of "there's no point being in 5 of a minor at matchpoints, is there?" Let's assume his hand was blatantly taking advantage of the UI (a different hand maybe), and 6c happens to make, is this a valid excuse? Because I've seen a lot of players (this is a mixed field) having that approach and just blindly raising 5m with no reason.

 

Thanks,

 

Eagles

[Cyberyeti]

Do you mean the hesitation was over the making of the 4♣ bid, or after it before the 5♣ bid ?

 

The former is no issue, the latter is an issue.

 

What was 2♦ ?

[eagles123]

sorry i meant after the 4c bid - i.e. East tanked for at least 5 minutes before 5C. The rest of the auction was in tempo.

 

2d is just general relay - this pair don't play complex methods.

[The_Badger]

There's every point of being in Five of a Minor at any scoring if it happens to be the right contract.

[StevenG]

There are too many questions for me.

 

Is East's 2♣ Acol? If so his 3♣ is a game force. If it's more of a Standard American 2♣, then maybe not.

What is West's 4♣? It matters whether or not the sequence is a game force.

There were no cue bids over the 4♣. Why not?

 

All in all, I don't think the pair had any great theoretical understanding of what they were doing, and I wouldn't accuse anyone of using UI.

[eagles123]

There are too many questions for me.

 

Is East's 2♣ Acol? If so his 3♣ is a game force. If it's more of a Standard American 2♣, then maybe not.

What is West's 4♣? It matters whether or not the sequence is a game force.

There were no cue bids over the 4♣. Why not?

 

All in all, I don't think the pair had any great theoretical understanding of what they were doing, and I wouldn't accuse anyone of using UI.

 

2c strongest, 3c GF, 4c natural probe. As to why no cues over 4C idk, as i said before, this isn't a strong pair.

[Cyberyeti]

sorry i meant after the 4c bid - i.e. East tanked for at least 5 minutes before 5C. The rest of the auction was in tempo.

 

2d is just general relay - this pair don't play complex methods.

 

OK, if 2♦ was negative then the hand was supermax, if it was waiting it wasn't which is why I asked.

 

I'd adjust it back to 5♣, partner can hold several hands where 6♣ doesn't make, and on some of those, 5♣ is better than 3N. The UI clearly indicates partner is not broke for 5♣ the weakest bid he can make so suggests 6♣.

[helene_t]

Unless West wanted to explore grand slam, and the pair can't stop in 4NT, it's hard to explain why he didn't bid 6♣ straight away. Another thing is that if they play 1430, 5♣ could mean "I can't tolerate blackwood as me showing three keycards would take us too high". But if that was the reasoning then West would have said "I think your 5♣ suggests three keycards".

 

Maybe both of these arguments are too subtle for this pair, in which case it just breaks down to whether pass is an LA (personally I would always bid slam with this hand but my standards for a 2♣ is higher than most English club players), and whether this this West really has a history of never playing 5m at MPs.

[sfi]

Unless West wanted to explore grand slam ...

 

That seems like a sensible plan with this hand. I would be very surprised if anyone I play with would not bid 6C on this auction, but maybe I have the same standards for a 2C opener as you do.

 

As for the comment about not playing five of a minor at matchpoints, that seems like a reasonable argument. Does anyone really think 3NT is not making here?

[shyams]

I'd certainly bid 4♣ over 3nt. There are various hands where a grand slam is likely, but it requires partner to cooperate with a diamond cue -- showing ♦K.

 

And I'd very likely continue to bid on to 6♣ regardless of partner's significant BIT

[lamford]

I'd certainly bid 4♣ over 3nt. There are various hands where a grand slam is likely, but it requires partner to cooperate with a diamond cue -- showing ♦K.

 

And I'd very likely continue to bid on to 6♣ regardless of partner's significant BIT

I would bid 4♣ over 3NT also, but when partner cannot bid 4D, 4H or 4S over this, I would not allow 6C. In fact, I would strongly consider a PP for 6C after a BIT. Partner could have something along the lines of ♠ AJ ♥ KQJ ♦ KJ ♣AKTxxx. That looks like a sensible hand for 2C followed by 3C followed by 3NT. Now, on a spade lead, I think I would rather be in Five Clubs than 3NT, and I don't think I want to be in Six Clubs.

 

It's not clear from the OP whether the 2C bid is just any hand that is Blue Book compliant, in which case partner could have ♠ Axx ♥ Axx ♦J ♣Kxxxxx. He was probably thinking long and hard about passing 4C, but feared that you would not play with him again. Maybe the slow 5C was an attempt to warn you off, and your 6C is over-ethical.

[The_Badger]

There are too many questions for me.

 

Is East's 2♣ Acol? If so his 3♣ is a game force. If it's more of a Standard American 2♣, then maybe not.

What is West's 4♣? It matters whether or not the sequence is a game force.

There were no cue bids over the 4♣. Why not?

 

All in all, I don't think the pair had any great theoretical understanding of what they were doing, and I wouldn't accuse anyone of using UI.

 

My sentiment entirely. Let's face facts, lots of players of a certain level open 2♣ on non-2♣ hands. Two problems exist here: the nebulous 2♦ relay; and, whether the 2♣ opener has a 2♣ opener.

 

Any advanced/expert West would recognise that except if partner has a 2NT rebid only, or in the case of an extreme misfit, that with his hand slam is probably about 50/50. On simple math 2♣ opener + positive response = slam zone. West's hand is a positive response in my view, and I would be bidding 2♥/2♠ over 2♣ if the ♦ suit was either ♥s or ♠s. The 2♦ relay and subsequent 3♦ bid can mean a completely different hand than the one given.

 

So East 'tanked' for 5 minutes. Are you sure he/she didn't fall asleep, or forget to bid :) ? The pair reached 6♣ in what for many would be an unsophisticated way. I get the feeling they're just average minus regular club players, so I'd just leave it. However, I might have got a bit feisty with them and the TD if they were both Life Masters, etc.

[sfi]

So, having polled an international player, I received two comments:

 

1. (with no pause for breath after reading the auction) 6C is obvious, because 5C will be dreadful at matchpoints.

2. WTF is 5C? There is no way East cannot cue anything after opening 2C.

[barmar]

I suspect the hesitation is due to being unsure whether 4♣ is natural or Gerber. In that case, I don't think it really suggests much -- all West knows is that East's bid is natural, since 5♣ is an impossible Gerber response. East may have been worried that a cue bid would be interpreted as a Gerber response.

[lamford]

I suspect the hesitation is due to being unsure whether 4♣ is natural or Gerber. In that case, I don't think it really suggests much -- all West knows is that East's bid is natural, since 5♣ is an impossible Gerber response. East may have been worried that a cue bid would be interpreted as a Gerber response.

I think Gerber unlikely, but 4C being minorwood is quite likely among good pairs, who usually agree that if 4NT is pulled to 4m when m has been bid naturally it is a slam-try and minorwood.

[The_Badger]

I suspect the hesitation is due to being unsure whether 4♣ is natural or Gerber. In that case, I don't think it really suggests much -- all West knows is that East's bid is natural, since 5♣ is an impossible Gerber response. East may have been worried that a cue bid would be interpreted as a Gerber response.

 

I agree with you, Barry. I never even considered this. I still come across some players who have been playing for years who don't realise that Gerber is a jump bid in response to a NT opener, and expect partner to dutifully respond to any 4♣ bid with an ace count, even after 3NT is bid. What makes it even more bizarre is that a few of those same players use Gerber with suit contracts too!

[barmar]

I think Gerber unlikely, but 4C being minorwood is quite likely among good pairs, who usually agree that if 4NT is pulled to 4m when m has been bid naturally it is a slam-try and minorwood.

If he's advanced enough to know about Minorwood, but they're not a very regular partnership, he could be trying to remember if they agreed to play it.

[johnu]

I think Gerber unlikely, but 4C being minorwood is quite likely among good pairs ...

 

Is that really true? My opinion of minorwood is considerably less favorable than say, Flannery.

[lamford]

Is that really true? My opinion of minorwood is considerably less favorable than say, Flannery.

Maybe people who play that 3C-(Pass)-4C is minorwood have turned you against it!