[inquiry]

As you can imagine, the panel's vote was split (well it did favor one bid) on this hand between 2♠ and 3♣. Interestingly, the panelist had a logical reason for choosing one or the other bid.

If I had to characterize the bidding by the panel, the optomist bid 2♠ (if game still likely, it will most probably be in ♠'s), the realist/pesimist bid 3♣ (more tricks in my hand in clubs). I will wait a day or two more of the straggling panelist to vote then post the results.

[han]

Very tough, I voted 3C.

Partner could easily be 6-4-2-1, and will not enjoy hearing 3C.

I think that 3C is more likely to make than 2S.

[han]

I think that this hand is suitable for a computer simulation.

[mikeh]

inquiry, on Oct 7 2005, 10:56 AM, said:

As you can imagine, the panel's vote was split (well it did favor one bid) on this hand between 2♠ and 3♣. Interestingly, the panelist had a logical reason for choosing one or the other bid.

If I had to characterize the bidding by the panel, the optomist bid 2♠ (if game still likely, it will most probably be in ♠'s), the realist/pesimist bid 3♣ (more tricks in my hand in clubs). I will wait a day or two more of the straggling panelist to vote then post the results.

Interesting: where did I fit?

I seem to recall (but at my age, the memory is one of the first things to go), that I voted for 3♣ mostly out of pessimism (I call it realism) but also because my partner would know what to do with an unlikely 5=4=1=3, say Axxxx Axxx x Kxx.

Surely that answer displayed some optimism (as well as perhaps the cumulative effect of too many mind-altering substances in my long-ago youth?)

[pclayton]

I really thought this was a great problem, and it was my 1st choice for the set.

Not that it ever matters, but for posterity, I'll post what actually happened after the panel checks in.

[luke warm]

i'd love to see what really happened, phil... on this one and the others you posted

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Oct 7 2005, 06:33 AM, said:

Even at matchpoints, 110=110. I go for whatever partscore is more likely to make.

true, but 140 would be better (especially at matchpoints)... partner could be 6/4, and even 5/4 doesn't preclude 9 spade tricks

[Winstonm]

I voted for 2S as I consider it the most flexible of bids and it doesn't preclude a 3C contract I wouldn't think if partner continued with 2N. If I bid 3C immediately, it had better be dead on right.

Winston

[HeartA]

2S for me as well.

[mike777]

3C

Will take a chance and bid my 7 card suit.

[inquiry]

The panel overwhelmingly voted for 3C, with the only second choice being 2♠. The total votes was:

Bid   votes
2♠    2
3♣    11

So you can imagine, the 100 score goes to 3♣. Since most of the votes considered 2♠, I upgraded it to 80.

Roland and Fred where the two panelist picking 2♠. Roland viewed this problem as follows. "BPO-006A: 2S. Could be that 3C plays better, but if partner is 5431 (likely), 3C is positionally wrong on a diamond lead through. Another aspect is that nothing prevents him from being 6-4 in the majors, and then 2S will be far superior."

Fred gives us a long, detailed analysis.
A. 2S

There are 2 issues:

1) If my rebid ends the bidding, does 2S or 3C rate to be a better contract?

2) If we belong in a game contract, does 2S or 3C rate to do a better job of getting us to that contract?

My judgment suggests that the answer to 1) is "it's close". Keep in mind that partner will probably have a singleton or void in clubs something like 80% of the time.

The answer to 2) is the deciding factor for me. We will belong in game only when partner has either significant high card extras or some extra high card values and good distribution. In either case, if partner has the expected singleton club, a 3C rebid by me does not rate to excite my partner. He will think that the deal is a misfit, take the conservative road, and pass, with some hands that would have bid again over 2S (and thereby reach a reasonable game contract).

3C will be the winner when partner has a club fit, but I think that this is less likely than partner having a hand that would bid over 2S, but not over 3C.[/i]

The other 11 panelist (Beto, Luis, Jeffrey and Frances Hinden, Fluffy, jlall, mikeh, Gerben42, ritong, ng, reisig and Sergey) all voted for 3♣. The first group of thse panelist thought 2♠ was an alternative.

Beto: "3♣. The other possibility is 2♠. I dont think partner will understand 4♣ and any other bid can easily lead us to a big penalty, even if we were not doubled (200,300). 3♣ is better because if partner bids again i can easily support him in spades. And, if partner passes 3♣ looks better than 2♠. In BBO ADV how does responder show an invitational hand with clubs after 1M? something like: x KQx xxx KQJ10xx?"

Justin: A) 3C. This is very close between 2S and 3C, but my club suit will be much more worthwhile when playing in clubs, even opposite a stiff. Much of this decision is random and depends on partners club length and suit quality in spades. My guess is 3C will work out better on average, but it'd be a good hand for simulation.

Ritong: 3♣. alternative is 2♠, i can t bid 2♠ spontaneously.3♠would show ♥fit, i think

ng: 3C. 2S is very close, but if I bid it, partner will pass most of the time. If I bid 3C, it will be relatively safe and better contract on the long run, and we have a chance even for game if partner have some Club support with maximum. If North has void in Clubs, he will bid something. If he bids 3D or 3H, I bid 3S. If he has 6-4 in the majors, I would try 4S after his 3S at IMP (see Vul).

Reisig: A. 3C...only 2 real choices here...2S is possible.

Others considered 2♠, but decided 3♣ clearly better.

Luis: "BPO-006A 3c, I can't find anything better, 2s can be an alternative but if pd has support for clubs our best game can be 3NT. I think that if 1s-3c is invitational then this hand would have been best described in that way."

Jeffrey and Frances: 3C. This is obvious at IMPS. Frances was quite tempted by 2S at matchpoints, but as Jeffrey points out, you'd look a bit silly playing in 2S when you are cold for 6C (or 7C opposite Axxxx Axxx - Kxxx).

And finally the group for which 3♣ was appears to be clear cut.

Fluffy: 3♣, any game we might make will need good ♣ fit and extras from partner, and he will make a move by himself then.

Mikeh: 3♣. Textbook. Would do this even at mps: at imps it is 100%: While 3♣ will almost certainly end the auction, it will play well enough even opposite a stiff and once in a while partner does the right thing with Axxxx Axxxx void Kxx

Gerben42: 3♣. Probably the best spot to play, partner won't make a move unless he has an exceptional hand.

Sergey: A. 3C - better than 2S. And 5C isnt out of question.

I thought this question was very close and anticipated a 60/40 split or so with majority voting for 3♣. I have to admit I would have voted with the majority.

[han]

Yes very interesting. Almost all non-panel members who explained their votes say that it was a close call too, still almost everybody voted for 3C. Perhaps this means that almost all of us think that the difference is extremely small in the long run but 3C slightly better/safer?

[pclayton]

For the inquiring minds out there:

I played this in a Swiss Match online. I made the popular 3♣ call, while my counterpart bid 2♠. I can't remember the identical hand, but pard had something along the line of QT9xx, AKJTx, Jxx, void and left me marooned in 3♣. Clubs were at least 4-2 and may have been 5-1. I struggled for -400 while the other table played on crossruff lines and made +110.

Do I think pard should pull to 3♥? Yes? But even then we are booked for a loss in 3♠.

I've given the hand to several players that I respect and the vote was rather split, although my regular pard thought that 3♣ was so automatic and gave an almost identical hand that Mike cited: Axxxx, Axxx, x, Kxx - the proverbial minimum that just rolls 6♣ that might just struggle a little in 2♠.

I think MP / IMPs makes a big difference. I think my hand looks real good for a 5-2 spade partial - with the heart shortness and club ACE. But in IMPs - when we are trying to avoid an undoubled disaster and/or find a nice fit and possible game.

[luke warm]

the great thing about these polls is, no matter how we the unwashed masses vote, we'll be in good company... unless our vote (as is my 5H elsewhere) is the *only* one

note also that most panelists mentioned MPs vs. IMPs.. i think it makes a difference

[JLOGIC]

Jlall, on 2005-October-07, 10:02, said:

I was really torn on this one. Either bid could be right and there probably isn't much difference long run.

One thing that's clear in reading my old thoughts is that I was much less sure about these decisions than I am now. This is of course contrary to the dburn theory that the younger you are the MORE confident you are. It is simply a case that as you get better and play/think/talk about bridge more, less situations are "close" in your mind. Here again I think 3C is automatic. Clubs will just play better a large majority of the time