What to bid?

[H Potter]

Matchpoint pairs

Red v White/Green

You are West, dealer East

 

You hold:

A6

AQ842

—

KQ9843

 

P-4D-?

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

[LBengtsson]

Tough call!!! Partner has already passed, and even with this 6-5 I am passing also. Make it 6♥5♣2♠ and I bid 4♥. It is one board. Preempts are made to make life difficult. Without partners pass I think this problem is more difficult and I would go with 4♥ and pray...

[helene_t]

Double and then 5♣ over 4♠ suggests 2-4-1-6 or thereabouts. This is the closest I can come to describing this hand. I am not too comfortable if partner leaves the double in, but it might be ok.

[mikeh]

Tough call!!! Partner has already passed, and even with this 6-5 I am passing also. Make it 6♥5♣2♠ and I bid 4♥. It is one board. Preempts are made to make life difficult. Without partners pass I think this problem is more difficult and I would go with 4♥ and pray...

The right 6 count makes 6C virtually laydown so passing is incredibly timid imo. Obviously one doesn’t play partner for magic cards, but equally obviously one won’t fare well, in the long run, by being equally pessimistic.

 

I’m bidding 5C. Over 5D, should they bid it, I’m bidding 5H.

 

Yes, I could go for a huge number but as the late Grant Baze offered as a Bols Bridge Tip “six-five, come alive’

[cherdano]

I agree with all of Mike's reply.

[paulg]

There is some compensation from the fact that partner has passed as he may well not hold six spades, increasing the chances of a decent fit.

 

I'm tempted by 4NT, if partner would understand it as clubs and a major along these lines.

[pescetom]

I'm tempted by 4NT, if partner would understand it as clubs and a major along these lines.

I would bid it and not worry too much if it was undiscussed, logic is logic.

[helene_t]

I would bid it and not worry too much if it was undiscussed, logic is logic.

Some play 4NT as natural.

[mikeh]

I would bid it and not worry too much if it was undiscussed, logic is logic.

It's amazing how often even fairly experienced partnerships will disagree when confronted with rare and previously undiscussed auctions: each offering afterwards a 'logical' explanation for why they interpreted the bidding differently than did partner.

 

More than 20 years ago the team I was on was coached for several days by Kokish,

 

At the time I think that my partner and I had the most detailed set of system notes in the country: 175 pages of densely packed notes, using flowcharts and tables to save space.

 

Yet when given a test in which we had, separately, to write down what a bid meant or should mean in about 75 unusual sequences, we were on different wavelengths for about a third of them and, at that, were the 'best' of the three expert partnerships (to be fair, the other partnerships had not been playing together for anywhere near as long as we had)

 

What I took from that, and believe to be true to this day, is that one should be extremely leery of taking a flier on the assumption that 'partner must surely get this right'

 

A central problem is that our own perception of what logical reasoning should be is inescapably influenced by wanting our chosen bid to show the hand we happen to hold at the time. Partner, of course, isn't looking at our hand, so his perception will be coloured by what he holds or wants us to hold.

 

Thus one needs to have 'meta rules'

 

We have one, not applicable to this situation but offered as an illustration.

 

In competitive auctions a bid of 2N is never natural. I don't think that would be contentious for most expert partnerships, and if one wanted to play 2N in some situation as natural, then one either has already made a specific agreement that this is an exception or one avoids a 'natural' 2N until the post mortem.

 

Here, 4N could logically be played as natural. Say we held AQ Ax Kx AKQxxxx sure, that's a rare holding but if we held that would we not very much want 4N to be natural? Wouldn't we be tempted to argue that 'logically, what else could it be?' After all, with both majors we double or bid 5D or bid a major. With primary clubs, we bid clubs. And some of us, with clubs and a side 5 card major, bid 5C then 5M if need be. Since those are surely at least plausible ways of dealing with those hands, isn't it 'logical' that 4N is to play?

 

I'm not arguing the bridge merits of any approach to this problem. These hands are so rare that even very experienced partnerships will encounter them at most a couple of times a year, and (I suspect) usually not that often. So we can't really speak from experience in most cases, and I certainly don't claim to do so.

[nullve]

https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/86290-any-suggestions/

[mikeh]

https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/86290-any-suggestions/

Good to see that I’m consistent (which isn’t always the case)

[LBengtsson]

The right 6 count makes 6C virtually laydown so passing is incredibly timid imo. Obviously one doesn’t play partner for magic cards, but equally obviously one won’t fare well, in the long run, by being equally pessimistic.

 

I’m bidding 5C. Over 5D, should they bid it, I’m bidding 5H.

 

Yes, I could go for a huge number but as the late Grant Baze offered as a Bols Bridge Tip “six-five, come alive’

 

I do not disagree with this, however...

 

What I do not want to do is give a passed partner a high expectation of my hand. Any opps. values will be over my hand, and both ♣/♥ suit has spaces even though you have two aces. At Matchpoints adopting aggressive approach can work, and partner can have (some) magic cards for your action to make a good board but when I used to play MPs - I have not played competitive bridge for many years - my psychology was to think the same as IMPs with these hands.

 

At IMPs there are two scenes: double game/slam swing or big penalty. Thats why this board at IMPs is more, more difficult, even a guess as to the right action. My view may be that of a pessimist, but before I make a decision here I would also think about other results of MP session. 6/5 is good shape - agree - but opps. may have difficult decision to make also over preempt. I would better get some matchpoints than minus matchpoints by bidding so aggressive.

 

My style thats all...

[mikeh]

I do not disagree with this, however...

 

What I do not want to do is give a passed partner a high expectation of my hand. Any opps. values will be over my hand, and both ♣/♥ suit has spaces even though you have two aces. At Matchpoints adopting aggressive approach can work, and partner can have (some) magic cards for your action to make a good board but when I used to play MPs - I have not played competitive bridge for many years - my psychology was to think the same as IMPs with these hands.

 

At IMPs there are two scenes: double game/slam swing or big penalty. Thats why this board at IMPs is more, more difficult, even a guess as to the right action. My view may be that of a pessimist, but before I make a decision here I would also think about other results of MP session. 6/5 is good shape - agree - but opps. may have difficult decision to make also over preempt. I would better get some matchpoints than minus matchpoints by bidding so aggressive.

 

My style thats all...

I’ve started playing a little international bridge again, most recently in the Polish Trans-Atlantic Seniors Invitational. What struck me the most is the level of aggression on display. You pass this hand in good competition these days, you’d better be right, since the field is definitely bidding.

 

Indeed, one reason I’d be comfort bidding is that I expect a lot of company.

[AL78]

In competitive auctions a bid of 2N is never natural. I don't think that would be contentious for most expert partnerships, and if one wanted to play 2N in some situation as natural, then one either has already made a specific agreement that this is an exception or one avoids a 'natural' 2N until the post mortem.

 

1♥ - (1♠) - 2♣ - (2♠)

2NT

 

Can't 2NT show a balanced hand outside your 1NT opening range with a spade stop, or if 2NT isn't natural, how do you show this hand?

[Cyberyeti]

1♥ - (1♠) - 2♣ - (2♠)

2NT

 

Can't 2NT show a balanced hand outside your 1NT opening range with a spade stop, or if 2NT isn't natural, how do you show this hand?

 

It can in strong NT land although you might agree to pass with that, in weak NT land it's FG so can show other hands as well

[Gilithin]

1♥ - (1♠) - 2♣ - (2♠)

2NT

 

Can't 2NT show a balanced hand outside your 1NT opening range with a spade stop, or if 2NT isn't natural, how do you show this hand?

If you have a minimum balanced hand with values in their suit, why do you want to use anything other than a green card?

[DavidKok]

1♥ - (1♠) - 2♣ - (2♠)

2NT

 

Can't 2NT show a balanced hand outside your 1NT opening range with a spade stop, or if 2NT isn't natural, how do you show this hand?

Textbook situation for Good/Bad.

[LBengtsson]

I’ve started playing a little international bridge again, most recently in the Polish Trans-Atlantic Seniors Invitational. What struck me the most is the level of aggression on display. You pass this hand in good competition these days, you’d better be right, since the field is definitely bidding.

 

Indeed, one reason I’d be comfort bidding is that I expect a lot of company.

 

I prefer your bid of 5♣, mikeh, followed by 5♥ over opps. 5♦ than helene-t bid of X as the opps could still raise to 5♦ and then partner will possibly bid 5♠ and then you are fixed.

 

My caution is that the partner of the 4♦ bidder knows exactly the sort of hand his partner has, so is in a better position to take action - bid one more, sacrifice, X - than your partner. At the table, in a short time space, it would be difficult to try to work out how the bidding is going forward, and what might happen: I think competitive bidding at the five level is one of the most difficult to calculate.

 

I am indeed a bit old-fashioned preferring caution over aggressive bidding so it is interesting to see that older players bid this these days. I always thought that it were the younger players who bid with enthusiasm :)

[mikeh]

Textbook situation for Good/Bad.

That’s how I play it in the partnership in which we use good-bad

[Douglas43]

I'm with the 4NT bidders. Over 4 of a suit, wanting to bid 4NT to play seems like a low-frequency occurrence compared to having a two-suiter

[pescetom]

Here, 4N could logically be played as natural. Say we held AQ Ax Kx AKQxxxx sure, that's a rare holding but if we held that would we not very much want 4N to be natural? Wouldn't we be tempted to argue that 'logically, what else could it be?' After all, with both majors we double or bid 5D or bid a major. With primary clubs, we bid clubs. And some of us, with clubs and a side 5 card major, bid 5C then 5M if need be. Since those are surely at least plausible ways of dealing with those hands, isn't it 'logical' that 4N is to play?

 

Fair point and I agree that one should not throw undiscussed strange bids at partner except as a last resort (I have one partner who takes sadistic pleasure in doubling where nobody except perhaps himself could be certain of the meaning). I hadn't contemplated the alternative of 5♣ then 5♥ if necessary, which does leave some room for 4NT natural over 4♦ (although I doubt Jeff Reubens would be enthusiastic).

 

What swayed my judgement here was an incident the previous evening, when RHO opened 4♥ and with 6-5 minors I bid 4NT, undiscussed with my occasional partner. He is a good player but suffers from aphasia and can get seriously confused in unfamiliar situations, so I was already regretting my choice before it hit the table. He flinched but bid 5♣ in tempo, which went down 1 for a good MP score. So I guess my thinking was "if it worked here it would work anywhere" - but of course the two situations are not really the same.

[helene_t]

What swayed my judgement here was an incident the previous evening, when RHO opened 4♥ and with 6-5 minors I bid 4NT, undiscussed with my occasional partner.

4NT over 4M is pretty universally minors, but over 4m it is not so obvious.