Matchpoints Bid or Not

[eagles123]

[hv=pc=n&s=s654hj8d6542cqj93&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1spp1npp(tank%3F)]133|200[/hv]

 

 

system is 2/1, south could have bid 2s first up or 1N I guess but whatever

 

thanks,

 

Eagles

[steve2005]

They missed a game, it is almost certainly not our hand. Let them play it.

[PhilG007]

[hv=pc=n&s=s654hj8d6542cqj93&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1spp1npp(tank%3F)]133|200[/hv]

 

 

system is 2/1, south could have bid 2s first up or 1N I guess but whatever

 

thanks,

 

Eagles

I would bid 2♠on the South hand. It's perfectly safe and it's cowardly not to contest the part score.

The part score area is where tournaments are won or lost.

[msjennifer]

Pass.I fail to understand why this problem has been posed at all.May be I am too junior to understand.I ,also, do not understand what the word TANK means in the context.

[Tramticket]

They missed a game, it is almost certainly not our hand. Let them play it.

 

Its match-points, so I don't worry about whether I am pushing them into a marginal game. (Opps have chosen to pass 1NT, so they must think that game is marginal at best).

 

Both pairs are non-vulnerable and this is the time to compete aggressively for the part-scores at match-points. Let's try and force them to make a three-level contract instead of a one-level contract. For me this is a Law (of Total Tricks) decision.

 

Note that we have a known eight-card spade fit and west bid 1NT in protecting seat and presumably has a few spades. East can't have passed with a strong hand and a stack of trumps - so there is little risk of being doubled in 2♠.

[gordontd]

I ,also, do not understand what the word TANK means in the context.

Go into the think tank.

[el mister]

I would bid 2♠on the South hand. It's perfectly safe and it's cowardly not to contest the part score.

The part score area is where tournaments are won or lost.

PhilG talking sense here - proof that the sun does indeed shine on a dog's arse every once in a while. 2S for me as well.

[MrAce]

Pass.I fail to understand why this problem has been posed at all.

 

Never/Ever leave opponents to play 1 NT when your side is known to hold 8+ fit in a major suit.

In LOTT (Law of Total tricks) when they play NT, their trumps are considered to be a 7 card fit (at least) even though they are not playing a trump suit. (According to Larry Cohen, the author of the LOTT book)

7+8 =15, which means there are 15 available tricks theoretically.

 

How do these 15 tricks divide?

 

7 vs 8 = which means they make 1 NT and you make 2M. (-90 vs +110)

6 vs 9 = which means they go down 1 while you make 2M+1 (+50 vs +140) or +100 vs +140 if you double their 1 NT.

5 vs 10= which means they go down 2 while you make 2M+2 (+100 {+300 if you dbl them} vs +170 or +420 if you actually bid the game)

8 vs 7 = they make +1 vs your down 1 (-120 vs -50/100 if doubled)

9 vs 6 = they make +2 vs your down 2 (-150 or -400 vs -100 or -300 if doubled)

etc etc..

 

Nothing works % 100 of course. So when you ask why this was posted as a problem, I expect bidding 2♠ was a loser on this particular deal, but predicting this never changed my replies in BBF. Because as you see above, leaving to 1 NT is a big time loser in long run.

 

I hope this helps how to use the LOTT and why people create so many convention to find a major fit over their NT. (And do not forget, your side may have more than just 8 card fit, pd may hold a weak 6 carder that he did not want to bid again or side double fit)

Add to this other factors, such as comfort of declaring vs defending (especially low level contract defense and how hard to defend 1 NT contracts) etc etc...

 

BID!!!

[FelicityR]

I have begun using with my regular partner 2♠ as a constructive raise 8-11 so wouldn't have bid 2♠ direct but would have bid a forcing 1NT first followed by 2♠. [i agree that may have changed the auction.] That said, The Law of Total Tricks is a reliable tool for part scores and major suit games and should be used as often as possible as MrAce has kindly demonstrated. It is not infallible and very occasionally you will end up with bad scores, but they will be heavily outweighed by the good scores you generate by using it at each and every opportunity.

[NickRW]

At these colours and scoring, easy bid.

 

Different colours or scoring, then it is a harder problem.

[ggwhiz]

I think 2♠ is justified at mp's to let east reconsider and play in 3 of a suit instead of 1nt.

 

-50 or -100 could win the board and we might even go plus. If they bid to game and make it they may have to justify it to the director.

[0deary]

Pass

 

Not the right time to use “the law"

 

North and West have the points so either would struggle- playing away from their suits whilst defenders use their tempi to good effect

 

If South bid 2S now then certainly East lost the option to play in 1N. But East now has two options because South is so weak: 2N or X

 

The weaker Wests NT the more East has to beat North honours. So with a weak NT I’d expect East have the best of both worlds: the effective 2N they already had plus now the X, and going for -300 will lose all the match points

[GrahamJson]

A balancing 1NT is possibly the most ill defined bid in the book. Whilst players may play that it shows 13-15, say, or some other range, they are often forced to use it on stronger hands, or unbalanced hands, simply because no other option appeals. There is therefore a good possibility that 1NT is not oppo’s best spot. Maybe they should be in three, with both oppo having taken a conservative view. Or maybe they have an eight card, or even longer, heart fit. Reopening might just allow then to find the right spot. One thing I do know is that partner is not holding a treasure trove as he surely would have bid again if all he needed was a queen opposite.

 

If I’m worth 2S now then I should have bid it immediately. Having decided it was not worth a raise before nothing has happened to make it worth it now. A hand does not suddenly get stronger just because you previously passed.

[PhilG007]

PhilG talking sense here - proof that the sun does indeed shine on a dog's arse every once in a while. 2S for me as well.

All compliments are accepted....even grudging ones(!) :rolleyes:

[PhilG007]

PhilG talking sense here - proof that the sun does indeed shine on a dog's arse every once in a while. 2S for me as well.

 

Some dog....some arse (!) ;)

[PhilG007]

A balancing 1NT is possibly the most ill defined bid in the book. Whilst players may play that it shows 13-15, say, or some other range, they are often forced to use it on stronger hands, or unbalanced hands, simply because no other option appeals. There is therefore a good possibility that 1NT is not oppo’s best spot. Maybe they should be in three, with both oppo having taken a conservative view. Or maybe they have an eight card, or even longer, heart fit. Reopening might just allow then to find the right spot. One thing I do know is that partner is not holding a treasure trove as he surely would have bid again if all he needed was a queen opposite.

 

If I’m worth 2S now then I should have bid it immediately. Having decided it was not worth a raise before nothing has happened to make it worth it now. A hand does not suddenly get stronger just because you previously passed.

 

"Part scores must be contested"

-Maurice Harrison-Gray 1960s Britsh International Player

[gordontd]

A hand does not suddenly get stronger just because you previously passed.

But your partner's expectations of your hand do get lower.

[Tramticket]

If I’m worth 2S now then I should have bid it immediately. Having decided it was not worth a raise before nothing has happened to make it worth it now. A hand does not suddenly get stronger just because you previously passed.

 

There is a fundamental misconception here. I agree that nothing has happened to make your hand stronger, but something has happened to change your objectives.

 

Case 1

 

The auction 1♠, (Pass), 2♠ is an uncontested auction. In an uncontested auction your objectives are:

- Bid as a partnership to the optimum strain and level, to a contract that you expect to make most of the time.

- You value your assets based on their playing strength in the context of the bidding so far. The valuation will tend to be based on high card strength adjusted for distribution.

- Communicate accurately your strength and shape to allow your partner to make useful judgments.

 

Case 2

 

The auction 1♠, (Pass), Pass, (1NT); Pass, (Pass), 2♠ is a competitive auction. In competition your objectives are:

- Bid to a contract that will score better than the opponents' contract.

- Prevent the opponents' from bidding to a contract that will score better than your contract.

- Use the Law of Total Tricks (LoTT) as a further method to judge the relative value of the hand in competition, particularly for part-score hands.

- Communicate your suit length to partner to allow partner to make effective LoTT decisions.

 

Please re-read Mr Ace's excellent LoTT analysis of the decision process on this deal. It doesn't rely on you bidding to your best making contract. Often, it will be sufficient to bid to a non-making contact and concede less than you would concede if the opponents made their contract.

[GrahamJson]

I notice that I missed a key fact; that we’re playing pairs, not teams. Given this I agree that 2S is reasonable. However I don’t think I would bid it if RHO had had a long think.

 

Incidentally, the LOTT only applies when comparing two suit contracts, not a suit vrs NT.

[Tramticket]

Given this I agree that 2S is reasonable.

 

:D

 

However I don’t think I would bid it if RHO had had a long think.

 

Interesting whether this should make a difference? What is he thinking about?

- Is he close to inviting?

- Or is he unbalanced? And considering taking out into 3♣/♦? (I'm assuming that most players will transfer with a five-card heart suit).

 

If he is close to inviting, it can't do any harm to push them up a level. (I find it hard to believe that they will double our eight-card fit at the two level).

 

If he considered playing in 3m and rejected that option, I am happy to push them in that direction. I want to nudge them out of 1NT.

[0deary]

Can I offer three further points:

A

“Part score must be contested” Maurice Harrion-Gray”

In 1951 Boris Schapiro wrote an article giving his opinion of the top players of the day. This was his assessment of Gray:

"Brilliant dummy player, very good defender, inclined to overbid in competitive situations but always liable to 'slip a contract through'. Concentration poor; difficult to play against

 

My view: If you want to model your bridge career on Gray and play bridge in the fast line don’t be surprised if you end up with too many broken bones

B

LOTT. Lets go back to basics here. A statistician look at the hands during a decent standard Congress and concluded that there was a fair correlation between total tricks part score hands from both sides of play. Hence Joe Amsbury’s book (we ate it when we was young) on total tricks. Our conclusion then was that it was just a useful guide, not quite as useful as Milton Work points but better than nothing for part score tussles. Now I understand Larry Cohen has taken the work further and polished it and offer the law. One output seems to be “8 fit- bid to 2 level etc”

Now I honestly accept that I haven’t read his book and I might well be worse of for it. But the reason is that I doubt if there can ever be compelling law between our scoring system, players judgement and computer generated hands

In my view you just have to think about everything at the table. A simple law is going to get your into trouble, sometimes

C

The example is great to bring this out! We are in a congress and Brian sits down and I know he will relies on LOTT. I’m in East and he bids 2S after the initial pass. Partner has 12-14 for the 1NT and I have 10 points. I know south is relying on an 8 fit. What do I know? We have quite a points advantage here. My partner has a useful S suit. That suit might be badly placed but North might long to reach dummy but can’t- dummy is too weak. Its match points. OK, I might catch the odd 2S doubles tick with a very useful side suit and or shape, but I’m going for the match points now and double. I find that quite an easy decision. I expect +300 for 90%

[rmnka447]

2 ♠

 

At both Matchpoints and IMPs you need to contest the part scores. At IMPs, you need to temper that because of possible number sets.

 

This hand is an absolutely clear cut 2 ♠ bid at Matchpoints at this vulnerability. Your initial pass showed 0-4, but an unknown number of ♠. 2 ♠ shows a fit and the 3-4 hand.

[Tramticket]

Now I honestly accept that I haven’t read his book and I might well be worse of for it.

 

The book has been around for over 25 years and really is worth a read :)

 

Its match points. OK, I might catch the odd 2S doubles tick with a very useful side suit and or shape, but I’m going for the match points now and double. I find that quite an easy decision. I expect +300 for 90%

 

Good luck with this strategy. Most players don't double enough part-score contracts at pairs and you probably should double on those occasions when you hold a ten-count (and presumably a spade shortage).

 

But even if you defeat 2♠ by the two tricks required to yield your +300, the LoTT tricks suggests that +400 would likely be available to you 3NT (again, refer to Mr Ace's table). But I suggest that you will usually be disappointed in your expectation of +300. Partners will often bid 1NT in the protective seat with a rather skimpy stop and even a robust stop will be sitting under declarer. I expect that your partner will often be unable to sit your take-out double and instead bid his suit at the three level. I will expect to be the long-run percentage winner by biding 2♠.

[msjennifer]

It is to be noted that those who could not respond 2S on the first round are now brave enough to do so and get penalized with a resounding double and lose a few imps.Perhaps they are underrating opponents .The auction is very clear.East realizes from his hand that game is not possible but a competitive reopening 2S by S would be juicy by doubling it.Try and get those 300 by passing and enticing S to bid .

[Tramticket]

and lose a few imps.

 

I think that you also missed that it is matchpoints.