[nickf]

Scoring: IMP

---

RHO deals and opens 3H, pass pass to partner who doubles.

Your call?
[RHO has been playing internationally for 30+ years and is 100% down the line; partner is an aggressive balancer.]

nickf
sydney

[awm]

At MP scoring I think I'd pass, but 3♥X will rarely go down more than one and might easily make, so at IMPs passing seems kind of high risk.

I suppose I'll try 4♦. This is the most likely place for us to have a fit. The 4-3 spade fit seems potentially ugly, and I have sufficient values that I'm not desperately trying to stay low and avoid a double.

[gwnn]

4♦. "I don't like it any more than you do". Pass and 3NT are both out of the question, Spades are absurd, and why would I prefer clubs to diamonds? I know I have 10 points. But so shall my partner.

[hrothgar]

Nasty problem...

GWNN might think that bidding Spades is absurd, however, 3♠ only requires 9 tricks to make. 4m requires 10. Yes, the tap will be in the wrong hand, but such is life.

I'm guaranteed a seven card fit and could easily have and 8 card fit. Personally, I think that bidding 4♦ is a lot more dangerous.

[gwnn]

Fair enough, making 3S requires 9 tricks. But how would pd bid with a nice hand which was too strong to overcall 3S? Would he not raise us into 4, requiring us to take 10 tricks? Distorting our shape is very fun, but not when it backfires. Any further rectification? The source of Miss Understanding.

[Blofeld]

hrothgar, on Dec 5 2006, 04:23 PM, said:

Nasty problem...

GWNN might think that bidding Spades is absurd, however, 3♠ only requires 9 tricks to make. 4m requires 10. Yes, the tap will be in the wrong hand, but such is life.

I'm guaranteed a seven card fit and could easily have and 8 card fit. Personally, I think that bidding 4♦ is a lot more dangerous.

I agree that it's a nasty problem.

FWIW I bid 4♦ but I'm not happy with this, and can easily imagine 3♠ being better.

But I'm a bit surprised at your suggestion that you're guaranteed a 7-card fit. What's partner bidding with 3154, 3145, 3244 (and a 15 count, say, in each case)?

Perhaps you read it as partner having passed initially? In which case I'd agree that partner is just about certain to have 4 ♠s.

[hrothgar]

gwnn, on Dec 6 2006, 12:36 AM, said:

Fair enough, making 3S requires 9 tricks. But how would pd bid with a nice hand which was too strong to overcall 3S? Would he not raise us into 4, requiring us to take 10 tricks? Distorting our shape is very fun, but not when it backfires. Any further rectification? The source of Miss Understanding.

If partner has a strong hand than my 10 count will come as a very nice suprise.
I play plenty of 4-3 fits. They don't worry me that much.

The real danger of a 3♠ bid is that partner might have a hand that prefers a Moysian and we end up stumbling into 4♠ on a 3-3 fit. Partner might have a good 3=2=3=5 hand with no Heart stopper.

However, you aren't gonna be much better positioned after originally bidding 4♦.

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Dec 6 2006, 12:40 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 5 2006, 04:23 PM, said:

I'm guaranteed a seven card fit and could easily have and 8 card fit.

I agree that you could have an 8 card fit but why are you guaranteed a 7 card fit?

31xx 3244 32(53) 3055 30(64) are all normal shapes to double with.

Sorry...

I shouldn't have said guarunteed... When I made the original posting I was think of hands that would pass a 3♠ response. I don't think that there are that many minimum hands that would chose to double with only 3 spades.

I do agree that there is some danger that partner might have a strong hand with three Spades. However, many of these hands might be able to scrape up a 3N bid.

[jdeegan]

Pass, without much conviction
Nasty problem given my 3-3-4-3 distribution.
3♠ ugly if, as expected, pard has only four and/or has extras.
4♦ also ugly based on LOTT - if they have nine tricks, we figure to have only eight. Down two undoubled should be OK in this case, but based on my 10 HCP, we figure to have the extra trick(s), so pass should win 75+% of the time.
One big worry is that pard has an extra powerful hand. In that case, my unilateral action might lose.

I plan to lead a small spade (or maybe the king? to get the pseudo uppercut).

[Robert]

Hi jdeegan

The problem is given while playing IMPS. Playing IMPs you should not be letting them make a game(3HsXed) 25% of the time and hopefully beating them 75% of the time. 'If' playing MPs 75% scores are fine.

Regards,
Robert

[jdeegan]

Robert, on Dec 5 2006, 05:13 PM, said:

Hi jdeegan

The problem is given while playing IMPS.  Playing IMPs you should not be letting them make a game(3HsXed) 25% of the time and hopefully beating them 75% of the time.  'If' playing MPs 75% scores are fine.

Regards,
Robert

Actually, playing IMPs and assuming 75+% = 75% with 17 tricks in the hand, you lose 9+ IMPs (8 vs 9 tricks & they only double once in a while), win 4 IMPs (9 vs 8 tricks) and win 5 IMPs (10 vs 7 tricks). Based on mathematical expectancy, it works out to be about a wash.

I would expect my chances to be a little better than above. Still, it is a close decision which is why it was such a problem at the table.

[the hog]

I can't pass for a variety of reasons, not the least significant is that I like my partner to balance. If I pass this, it may well have an effect on partnership actions in the future. I will bid 4D without much conviction. 3NT and 3S are options but I don't really like either much. I might try 3S if it was not a serious event.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

You might try the LAW results using various numbers for total tricks. Why would 17 tricks be your starting point for this hand?

Long suits tend to make extra tricks(in LAW type auctions) and that Jxx of hearts appears to make the play of the hand much better for the other side.

My doubles at IMPs tend to be for 'down two.' Doubling for one trick sets is a bit rich for my taste at IMPs. Passing a 'game going' partscore 'without a trump trick' is also a bit rich for my taste. At MPs, doubling for down one will often be a top so my quickdraw approach to MP doubles is fairly standard.

Going back to compare results with a '3HXed making' result for the other side is just not my idea of IMP style bridge.

You 'quoted the 75% figure' and I replied 'using your guesstimate.' My estimate was that you would not beat 3Hs at quite your 'quoted' 25% rate. A slightly lower figure would be more likely IMHO which would move your IMP results into a minus value rather than being a 'wash.'

Do I recall correctly that partner is an 'aggressive' balancer? If so that 25% to defeat the contract is even more suspect IMO. I looked again and that was the comment made in the first post.

Regards,
Robert

[HeartA]

It is vary nasty. I will gamble on 3NT.

[Halo]

4D.

Passing looks completely wrong to me opposite about 8+ points protective. Three spades isn't my style. How I would I feel about 3NT followed by double, running to 4D and a making 4H call from opponents? Not my idea of tactics. I agree that 3NT passed out -5 for -250 is more likely: don't know how I explain that one to partner and team mates either, when they post -400/-420.

[FrancesHinden]

4D, though I hate it.
I join the passers at matchpoints.

[helene_t]

3NT. I don't expect to make it but I don't expect to make 4♦ either. A dubious game is better than a dubious partscore.

[Codo]

My understanding team mates will accept any score I will bring them, after all, they see, that this is an ugly hand after the preempt. Anything could work fine or fail.

I will bid 3 NT too and run from a double.

My worst case scenario is a real strong pd and we fail to make 3 (or more) NT because we lack a stopper and can make 6 in a minor. But more likely we will have + 430 or -150. I would prefer this chance to + 130 - 50.