To raise or not to raise

[AL78]

[hv=pc=n&s=skq752ha5dt754c96&w=sat4hkq72da93cak5&n=s986hjt94dqj6cqj7&e=sj3h863dk82ct8432&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=pp2nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

2NT is 20-21. I didn't think my four count was quite enough to raise. I was wrong. A favourable layout and a heart lead taken immediately by South meant 10 tricks were easy. I tend to go by the guideline that you need a bit more than 24-25 HCP to make 3NT when nearly all the HCP are in one hand, it happened partner has a near perfect hand opposite mine. About half the field were in it, only a handful went down. I think it theoretically goes down on a spade lead, but North is never finding that.

[mycroft]

2NT is weird.

 

I agree with everything you say, but my opinion, which tends not to get disagreements (but of course, here it will!) is:

 

Partner opens 2NT, raise to 3 if you have what looks like an entry.

 

Almost always, with that strength, it doesn't matter if you have 3, 4, 5, 6 points; it matters if partner can get into your hand to lead a particular suit. If he can, you'll likely make. If he's playing it out of his hand, it's almost impossible.

 

Frequently, if partner can't make it even with the entry, it doesn't make 2 either, so (at least at IMPs) the loss on the push is reduced.

 

Note that that isn't "a trick", it's "an entry". Long tricks, if the way to get to them is "3 to the 10 on the third round", are likely too late. On this hand, long tricks make the contract, but the way to get them is guaranteed and immediate.

 

So with this hand, I'd raise on the ♦K, but pass with ♦QJ (and see that the QJ might just mean they get to clear their spades before you get to the clubs).

[AL78]

2NT is weird.

 

I agree with everything you say, but my opinion, which tends not to get disagreements (but of course, here it will!) is:

 

 

 

Almost always, with that strength, it doesn't matter if you have 3, 4, 5, 6 points; it matters if partner can get into your hand to lead a particular suit. If he can, you'll likely make. If he's playing it out of his hand, it's almost impossible.

 

Frequently, if partner can't make it even with the entry, it doesn't make 2 either, so (at least at IMPs) the loss on the push is reduced.

 

Note that that isn't "a trick", it's "an entry". Long tricks, if the way to get to them is "3 to the 10 on the third round", are likely too late. On this hand, long tricks make the contract, but the way to get them is guaranteed and immediate.

 

So with this hand, I'd raise on the ♦K, but pass with ♦QJ (and see that the QJ might just mean they get to clear their spades before you get to the clubs).

 

The ♦K as an entry was considered, but I ultimately decided to pass, thinking it would be split about 50-50 across the field. At IMPS, I would have raised to game, but I think there is less benefit to bidding thin games at MPs. It is not just the entry, it is AKx opposite my lousy five card suit, combined with a 3-2 break which brings in the game.

[hrothgar]

I could swear that I played that same hand in the Challenge match...

[Cyberyeti]

The ♦K as an entry was considered, but I ultimately decided to pass, thinking it would be split about 50-50 across the field. At IMPS, I would have raised to game, but I think there is less benefit to bidding thin games at MPs. It is not just the entry, it is AKx opposite my lousy five card suit, combined with a 3-2 break which brings in the game.

 

And both spades and ♥A right, otherwise Q♦ lead does damage trivially to 3N without having to be in any way careful.

[smerriman]

With the usual heavy disclaimers about double dummy analysis (which would say you don't want to be in game on the above hand), and a simplistic constraint of West simply having a balanced 20-21 HCP without taking into account upgrades (ie West is probably going to be a little weaker than predicted), I calculate game at about 35%.

 

So passing seems a reasonable idea at MPs.

[blackshoe]

Who was it who said "Don't play me for the perfect hand, I won't have it"? B-)

[doccdl]

The DK is an entry only when you see all 26cards.The good for nothing club suit has no Honor like at least Q.In it..And even now the S10 is not known.Shoot in the dark wishing for the stars ? Then bid 3NT and go down.Else just pass 2NT and hope it makes.Worst if opener has AKx-AKQJ-xxx-KJx and you lose the first 6 or 7 tricks on a diamond lead with Club AQ trapping his KJ.

[dsLawsd]

At IMPS I view the 5 clubs as enough to go on, but Pass at Matchpoints. If partner is a good declarer. On a bad day it will be -320 or so. Of course the length of the match and the state of our game will influence the action.

 

At $ don't we want to be there?

It might even come down to the spade J being a half-stopper.

 

I wouldn't criticize either Pass or bid by my partner however.

[maartenxq]

I would not give this hand much thought and bid 3 nt even in mps and certainly on bbo. Pass is playing against the field.

 

Maarten Baltussen

[Vampyr]

At IMPS I view the 5 clubs as enough to go on, but Pass at Matchpoints. If partner is a good declarer. On a bad day it will be -320 or so. Of course the length of the match and the state of our game will influence the action.

 

 

Do you mean -420 ie 600-180?

[johnu]

I would not give this hand much thought and bid 3 nt even in mps and certainly on bbo. Pass is playing against the field.

Making good bids and plays (and not making bad bids and plays) is what is supposed to separate good players from bad players. If you think 3NT is going to be a bad contract, why do you want to join the field in bidding a terrible game?

[bluenikki]

Making good bids and plays (and not making bad bids and plays) is what is supposed to separate good players from bad players. If you think 3NT is going to be a bad contract, why do you want to join the field in bidding a terrible game?

 

Being with the field matters only if it's the last round, and you will win the event if you avoid a shared bottom.

[aawk]

All depends if you play for MPs or IMPs. Playing for MPs pass or 3nt both can be the right action depending how the field is. Playing for IMPs 3nt is the only option because game pays better (if it smells like game bid game).

 

Maybe it is better to agree which 20 HCP you not open 2nt with. Holding 20 HCP from 5-6 top honours is a reason not to open 2nt.

 

holding a 4333/4432/5332 pattern with 20 HCP from AAAAKJ open 1x.

 

holding a 4333 pattern with 20 HCP from AAAKKQ/AAAKKJJ open 1x.

 

If you agree this with your partner any 4 count is good enough to bid 3nt.

 

And yes this time you would loose not bidding 3nt but partner is holding AKx in ♣, distribution in ♣ being 3-2 and K ♦ as entry.

[johnu]

Being with the field matters only if it's the last round, and you will win the event if you avoid a shared bottom.

Only probable if you are doing barometer scoring and your opponents' scoring is known, and you have a big enough lead that somebody can't score a top the last board and overtake you. I wouldn't spend any time worrying about that scenario. Also, predicting what the field will do can be problematic.

[Stephen Tu]

All depends if you play for MPs or IMPs. Playing for MPs pass or 3nt both can be the right action depending how the field is. Playing for IMPs 3nt is the only option because game pays better (if it smells like game bid game).

 

Well vul at IMPs, anyway. You bid game because of the payoff of making vs going down and also the phenomenon of not losing so much for the extra undertrick if 2nt is down already. But NV should be a bit more conservative, and there comes a point where it's too thin even vulnerable.

 

At MPs, you really want game to be >50%. Even if the entire field is bidding game, if you are correctly not bidding it, you are getting more of the MP in the long run if you are right about the actual success percentage (including factoring in how bad the defense rates to be). Plus scores are good at MP, if there is something tricky about the play you beat anyone in 2nt making 2 only, and any in 3 going down, generally if you are not ridiculously underbid you'll get a decent MP score for +150, it won't be as bad on average as -100/-200 is.

 

 

FWIW Thomas Andrews made a ridiculously thorough study of thin 2nt-3nt raise decisions

http://bridge.thomas...tml#z_hcp_Intro

If I am reading his results correctly, it seems this hand is just barely worth a raise vul at IMPs but should be passed in other situations.

[FelicityR]

Just bad luck as opposed to a bad decision. I would have raised to 3NT but that doesn't mean it would make. Partner is more likely to have 20HCPs than 21HCPs. I'm not disagreeing with the other commentators that bidding vulnerable games is paramount, but occasionally at MPs you will gain by taking a view as you did here. Unfortunately on this board you lost as opposed to gained. C'est la vie. Next board.

[bluenikki]

Only probable if you are doing barometer scoring and your opponents' scoring is known, and you have a big enough lead that somebody can't score a top the last board and overtake you. I wouldn't spend any time worrying about that scenario. Also, predicting what the field will do can be problematic.

 

I believe you misread my comment.

 

Worrying about the field is relevant only in the last round.

 

And then only if an average-minus will not affect your position.

[Joe_Old]

Who was it who said "Don't play me for the perfect hand, I won't have it"? B-)

 

One of Barry Crane's mantras.

[pigpenz]

that was for bidding slams

[Vampyr]

I believe you misread my comment.

 

Worrying about the field is relevant only in the last round.

 

Why do you think this?

[mycroft]

As someone who deliberately plays anti-field systems, I guarantee that "bid with the field, play better" is a recipe for success. When dummy comes down and you see that you are booked for 10%, maybe 20% if you manage some brilliancy, 5 or 6 times a session, it literally doesn't matter how good a player you are. It also doesn't matter when dummy comes down and you see that you are booked for 70+%, 60% if you butcher it.

 

One of the joys of playing Precision is that a lot of hands that are tricky or delicate or revealing playing a standard system are straight book auctions, or bash-and-drop for you. You get to the right contract, you're comfortable it's the right contract, and usually the opponents have less to go on. The ones that cause grey hairs are the ones where you know all the standard players are having a bash-and-drop auction, you're not, and you know they're in a bad contract. Because you either back your system and play for top/bottom, or you play the field and give up all your advantages. The worst are things like "the field is going 1NT-3NT. You're at 3♥, and you know that there's a decent shot that 6♦ is there. But if you don't bid 3NT now, and we find out it's wrong, we're playing 5♦ into a field full of +630. Your bid."

 

Of course you always consider the field, and what the percentages of each line is and what the payout odds of each line is. That's Matchpoints.

[bluenikki]

Why do you think this?

 

Because only at the end can you judge that a 45% action, say, will not reduce your standing and a 55% action will not improve it.

[Vampyr]

Because only at the end can you judge that a 45% action, say, will not reduce your standing and a 55% action will not improve it.

 

The post above indicates, much better than I could have put it, why you are wrong.

 

I am wondering, Mycroft, when you are playing to win you will of course play your system because you think it is best. But playing against the field can often produce a higher-variance game. So what about in a qualifying event? I am wondering this myself, because 2/1 GF is becoming popular here, and it is a very simple treatment to play, with few nuances or delicate auctions. When real bridge is back again, I am considering changing my system when the aim is to qualify.

[bluenikki]

The post above indicates, much better than I could have put it, why you are wrong.

 

I am wondering, Mycroft, when you are playing to win you will of course play your system because you think it is best. But playing against the field can often produce a higher-variance game. So what about in a qualifying event? I am wondering this myself, because 2/1 GF is becoming popular here, and it is a very simple treatment to play, with few nuances or delicate auctions. When real bridge is back again, I am considering changing my system when the aim is to qualify.

 

Nonsense. Trying to make the same mistakes as the field is just trying to minimize losses.

 

That is just giving up *unless* you already have a big lead.

 

Example: The player on your right has opened with a pre-empt. You end up declaring and have a 2-way guess for the queen in a 9-card fit. The odds clearly favor finessing into the pre-emptor. In the long run you win. But for some reason fields don't know that. So you risk a very bad score on this deal when the odds-on fails. That can *only* be a consideration if this particular score can worsen your standing.