Help
Scoring: MP
The auction so far, with your LHO dealing:
Pass-Pass-1♦-1♥
Double-1NT-2♠-3♥
Pass-Pass-3♠-?
What's your next bid?
Page 1 of 1
What do you bid? Matchpoint problem
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,691
- Joined: 2005-February-09
- Gender:Male
- Location:Zurich, Switzerland
Posted 2006-January-15, 23:08
The auction so far, with your LHO dealing:
Pass-Pass-1♦-1♥
Double-1NT-2♠-3♥
Pass-Pass-3♠-?
What's your next bid?
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#2
- Under bidder
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,797
- Joined: 2004-July-25
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Posted 2006-January-16, 01:23
Pass, I've done enough. I might have bid 3C instead of 3H, that looks like a tough call.
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.
- hrothgar
- hrothgar
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,384
- Joined: 2004-February-16
- Location:Belgium
Posted 2006-January-16, 08:47
Pass.
I would have dbl or bid 3♣ instead of 3♥
Alain
I would have dbl or bid 3♣ instead of 3♥
Alain
Alain
#4 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2006-January-16, 08:48
pass, I have succeeded in pushing them up. I agree with 3H, 3C should be 5-5.
#5
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 839
- Joined: 2005-October-20
Posted 2006-January-16, 18:32
Pass. 3♣ would have been 5-5. Maybe double would have been better than 3♥, promising some defense too (partner might have a double of 3♠, and this hand should bring 3 tricks: at MP, it would make a difference).
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,784
- Joined: 2005-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canada
- Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.
Posted 2006-January-16, 18:42
Jlall, on Jan 16 2006, 09:48 AM, said:
pass, I have succeeded in pushing them up. I agree with 3H, 3C should be 5-5.
ditto
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,151
- Joined: 2003-June-11
- Location:Southern California
Posted 2006-January-16, 21:05
The old school says you are supposed to double with hands like this. The idea is that we were expecting to make 3♥ so we rate to get a poor score even if 3♠ is -1 or -2. Double will get us to 0% / 40% / 90% depending on what happens to 3♠.
I can't tell you how long its been since I've heard someone talked about this idea.
It seems the modern strategy is - who knows who can make what? A plus is a plus and I don't want to give up -530 and would rather take my 30% board with +50/100.
Or am I all wet?
I can't tell you how long its been since I've heard someone talked about this idea.
It seems the modern strategy is - who knows who can make what? A plus is a plus and I don't want to give up -530 and would rather take my 30% board with +50/100.
Or am I all wet?
"Phil" on BBO
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,290
- Joined: 2004-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, England
Posted 2006-January-16, 21:12
Fair enough Phil, after all 3♠ tick will still be a bad score when we could have been 3♥-1 - but partner is still there, he can whack it if he has a little defence.
#9 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2006-January-16, 21:23
pclayton, on Jan 16 2006, 10:05 PM, said:
The old school says you are supposed to double with hands like this. The idea is that we were expecting to make 3♥ so we rate to get a poor score even if 3♠ is -1 or -2. Double will get us to 0% / 40% / 90% depending on what happens to 3♠.
I can't tell you how long its been since I've heard someone talked about this idea.
It seems the modern strategy is - who knows who can make what? A plus is a plus and I don't want to give up -530 and would rather take my 30% board with +50/100.
Or am I all wet?
I can't tell you how long its been since I've heard someone talked about this idea.
It seems the modern strategy is - who knows who can make what? A plus is a plus and I don't want to give up -530 and would rather take my 30% board with +50/100.
Or am I all wet?
yes yes, don't forget we know they are stretching, and we know they're in a 4-4 fit with a 4-1 rail and we know RHO has strength so our AQs may be well placed etc etc. If they were red I might be a little tempted. There are several other factors.
1) If they go down 1, +50 and +100 are not much different.
2) If they go down 2 partner might X himself.
3) RHO has bid diamonds spades spades. There is a good likelihood he is 4-1-5-3 or something along those lines. His diamond finesses are on. We have no values in his suits.
4) We may have done well to get them to 3S. Partner may have a marginal 1N bid and some may pass his hand then sell to 2S. Why punish partner for doing something good.
5) If RHO does indeed have a stiff heart (not unlikely for his 3S bid) and pard has 2 that gives LHO 4. We may easily have been going down. Again partner seems to have wastage in the pointed suits. Maybe some will crack 3H with LHOs hand, or sell out and beat 3H.
6) I have no reason to believe this was our hand. Even if you thought you were making 3H, you may also think they will make 3S.
7) RHO may have just made a bad bid. I know some people who just won't sell on auctions like this. Even if we beat them 2, we may have been going down when the field sells out.
8) I don't want to risk a bottom on a speculative X when my goal is to beat them TWO. Again this is why I'd be more tempted red.
But besides all these things I just think something along the lines of, I've got them to 3S when they were in 2S. I have a stiff spade. I have 2 small diamonds. I have...2 tricks in my hand and partner hasn't shown much. Partner can still X. Why am I Xing? I think a lot of people out think themselves on these type of hands and don't just go back to common sense.
#10
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 839
- Joined: 2005-October-20
Posted 2006-January-17, 02:50
The consideration on the oppos being NV is the most cogent. If they are 1 off it does not make a lot of difference; and pard can still double.
There is also no need to go for a top on each board: 3♠-1 would be avg+, IMHO
OTOH, I've not promised a lot in defense, and I'd be unlucky to bring just 2 tricks.
There is also no need to go for a top on each board: 3♠-1 would be avg+, IMHO
OTOH, I've not promised a lot in defense, and I'd be unlucky to bring just 2 tricks.
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,691
- Joined: 2005-February-09
- Gender:Male
- Location:Zurich, Switzerland
Posted 2006-January-17, 14:45
Here's the full board:
The auction was:
Pass - Pass - 1♦ - 1♥
Dbl - 1NT - 2♠ - 3♥
Pass-Pass-3♠ - 4♣
X - 4♥ - X - All Pass
West was the dealer. The second pass by the 1NT bidder was after substantial thought. The doubles by E/W were perhaps unadvisable, but N/S have been pushed into a game they apparently weren't going to bid on their own on a hand where they may not have a fit, and it may be necessary to protect the partial at MPs.
The result was of course 4♥X making, +590 to N/S. The lead was the ♦K.
Would you adjust the result of the board? Seems like there were two main issues once we determine that pass is logical on south's cards: (1) did the hesitation suggest that bidding 4♣ was more likely to succeed than it otherwise would be? (2) were E/W doubles a "failure to play bridge" such that the result should stand?
Scoring: MP
The auction was:
Pass - Pass - 1♦ - 1♥
Dbl - 1NT - 2♠ - 3♥
Pass-Pass-3♠ - 4♣
X - 4♥ - X - All Pass
West was the dealer. The second pass by the 1NT bidder was after substantial thought. The doubles by E/W were perhaps unadvisable, but N/S have been pushed into a game they apparently weren't going to bid on their own on a hand where they may not have a fit, and it may be necessary to protect the partial at MPs.
The result was of course 4♥X making, +590 to N/S. The lead was the ♦K.
Would you adjust the result of the board? Seems like there were two main issues once we determine that pass is logical on south's cards: (1) did the hesitation suggest that bidding 4♣ was more likely to succeed than it otherwise would be? (2) were E/W doubles a "failure to play bridge" such that the result should stand?
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#12
- 5555
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,520
- Joined: 2003-September-04
- Gender:Male
Posted 2006-January-17, 14:58
(1) Clear yes.
(2) Clear no in any field I have played so far. Maybe the doubles are bad but well within the range of things that happen quite normally at the MP bridge table I have seen so far.
People on RGB have argued that the ACBL is way too quick in pulling the "failure to play bridge" card. This would be a very good example.
(2) Clear no in any field I have played so far. Maybe the doubles are bad but well within the range of things that happen quite normally at the MP bridge table I have seen so far.
People on RGB have argued that the ACBL is way too quick in pulling the "failure to play bridge" card. This would be a very good example.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
#13
- Under bidder
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,797
- Joined: 2004-July-25
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Posted 2006-January-17, 14:59
(1) did the hesitation suggest that bidding 4♣ was more likely to succeed than it otherwise would be?
Yes!
(2) were E/W doubles a "failure to play bridge" such that the result should stand?
This is difficult to say, and I guess it depends on the level of bridge. I do not think that either double is correct. It is true that they are in a game they wouldn't have been in by themselves, but everything suggests that they are making this.
Would you adjust the result of the board?
I believe my answers to (1) and (2) indicate that the score should be adjusted for NS, but maybe not for EW?
Yes!
(2) were E/W doubles a "failure to play bridge" such that the result should stand?
This is difficult to say, and I guess it depends on the level of bridge. I do not think that either double is correct. It is true that they are in a game they wouldn't have been in by themselves, but everything suggests that they are making this.
Would you adjust the result of the board?
I believe my answers to (1) and (2) indicate that the score should be adjusted for NS, but maybe not for EW?
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.
- hrothgar
- hrothgar
#14
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,949
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2006-January-17, 15:08
Fought the Law worked on this hand.
We play partner for 7 working hcp.
13-3-0=10 tricks
13=total tricks
minus 3=estimated combined 2 shortest suits.
minus zero=estimated combined 19 working hcp.
Biggest issue is does partner bid 1nt on any hands or only good sound hands.
If you play sound opening bids I let 4h result stand. 1nt could be a very very good hand. Partner need not start with xx on all good hands with 2 card heart support.
We play partner for 7 working hcp.
13-3-0=10 tricks
13=total tricks
minus 3=estimated combined 2 shortest suits.
minus zero=estimated combined 19 working hcp.
Biggest issue is does partner bid 1nt on any hands or only good sound hands.
If you play sound opening bids I let 4h result stand. 1nt could be a very very good hand. Partner need not start with xx on all good hands with 2 card heart support.
#15
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,900
- Joined: 2004-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portugal
- Interests:Everything!
Posted 2006-January-18, 04:18
Case for overcalling 2♥ over 1♦, but ok. Right now I just don't know what to bid... 
I'd pass or bid 4♥ depending on how I feel.
I'd pass or bid 4♥ depending on how I feel.
#16
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,577
- Joined: 2005-March-01
- Gender:Male
- Location:Erlangen, Germany
-
Interests:Astronomy, Mathematics
Nuclear power
Posted 2006-January-18, 08:37
hmm instead of edit I got two post, you can remove this one if you like
#17
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,577
- Joined: 2005-March-01
- Gender:Male
- Location:Erlangen, Germany
-
Interests:Astronomy, Mathematics
Nuclear power
Posted 2006-January-18, 08:37
Quote
Case for overcalling 2♥ over 1♦, but ok.
You can't choose that, it's weak.
I would have passed 3♠.
If partner hesitated before passing I don't have to consider bidding anymore, then ethically there is only one way to go. Pass Pass Pass.
#18
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,427
- Joined: 2005-August-12
- Gender:Male
-
Interests:Economics
Finance
Bridge bidding theory
Cooking
Downhill skiing
Posted 2006-January-18, 21:45
Geez Louise. Bidding 4♣ on this apparent misfit hand is bad. Bidding it after pard's hesitation is worse. Your 3♥ bid showed your hand, and partner's final (but slow) pass declined a game try.How bad are the opponents' doubles? IMO not so egregious as to constitute a 'failure to play bridge'. I hate adjusting boards because of hesitations, but this one is a clear cut 'job' and needs a remedy.
#19
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 839
- Joined: 2005-October-20
Posted 2006-January-18, 23:20
- the break in tempo helped for sure
- both double are not very rational, and might be considered double shots, or gambling
Btw: IMHO, S should have double at 2nd round, rather than bidding 3♥
Page 1 of 1