[Apollo81]

All white, MPs

(pass)-pass-(1♣)-Dbl
(1♦)-1♠-(pass)-pass
(2♣)-2♠-(3♣)-?

AQxx KQx xxx QJx

I don't care if you wouldn't have doubled 1♣.

[whereagles]

Dbl and lead a small spade (so that pard can lead trumps from his side).

Would pass at imps.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Pass.

I would have passed in the first round,
but that is a style issue.
3S is a violation of the Law,
partner probably has a 5 carder, but you
are 4-3-3-3 with QJx in their suit.

I dont believe that it will make a difference
getting +50 instead of +100, ... and it is far
from certain, that we will beat 3C, be grateful, that
partner pushed them one level up, and try to beat
the contract.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[temp3600]

3♠. I'm betting on 17 total tricks.

[neilkaz]

Tough choice at MP, but I pass at IMPs...unless needing a swing I lean towards a pass at MPs.

If I bid at MPs I slightly prefer dbl and lead a small ♠ to 3♠ with my flat hand.

I also double 1♣ for takeout at any form of scoring since I feel I have enough extra to compensate for being 4333.

[mike777]

1) agree with first double, I got 14 hcp
2) double now, whatever that means.

[sathyab]

Partner doesn't have to have more than KJxxx of spades to bid 2s. He didn't bid 2s over 1d, he didn't bid 2h over 2c at his second turn (which again need not show extras just shape and trying to find the best fit). So I wouldn't at all be surprised if pd has KJxxx xxx Jxx xx. They could wrap up this one up easily in that case and of course 3s doesn't rate to make at all. If partner has a slightly better hand for defense, say JTxxx Axx Qxx xx, he might not double 3c when it gets back to him for fear that you might have stretched to compete yourself. It appears that you got them to a level where you can beat them easily if they have overbid, but not know if your aggressive competing got them higher in the first place.

[mike777]

If partner only has KJxxx does double give us two bites at the apple, pass with a ton more, bid 3s with nothing? Just asking.

[Free]

Pass, I've already told my hand, it's up to partner...

[pclayton]

sathyab, on Jan 5 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

Partner doesn't have to have more than KJxxx of spades to bid 2s. He didn't bid 2s over 1d, he didn't bid 2h over 2c at his second turn (which again need not show extras just shape and trying to find the best fit). So I wouldn't at all be surprised if pd has KJxxx xxx Jxx xx. They could wrap up this one up easily in that case and of course 3s doesn't rate to make at all. If partner has a slightly better hand for defense, say JTxxx Axx Qxx xx, he might not double 3c when it gets back to him for fear that you might have stretched to compete yourself. It appears that you got them to a level where you can beat them easily if they have overbid, but not know if your aggressive competing got them higher in the first place.

Agree with Sathya.

In the MBC I held: xx, x, 98xxxx, AQxx and player 3♦ x'd over an almost identical auction:

1♣ - x - 1♥ - 2♦
2♣ - pass - pass - 3♦
pass - pass - dbl - AP

I bought: QJT8, AJxxx, KTx, x and rolled i with a little help.

[whereagles]

Because it's matchpoints. If pard's 2♠ freebid was made on a good 7 hcp hand, it would be wrong to sell out to 3♣

[Halo]

I bid 3S and hope to go -100 (worst case) versus -110.

[awm]

Pass.

3♠ is somewhat ridiculous -- we have 4333 shape and the QJx opposite partner's likely shortage. Double already showed more offense than we've got. If you bid 3♠ here, with what possible takeout double do you not bid 3♠?

Double could be right, and if opponents were red I'd give it more consideration. But at MP there is rarely much difference between +100 and +50, and I'd be rather surprised to set them two tricks on this hand. Of course, there is likely a big matchpoint difference between -110 and -470. Our bidding may have pushed them up a level, or out of notrump, and there's no particular reason to think defending 3♣ (undoubled) will be a bad result.

[Halo]

I bid 3S because I hope to make at least 6 spades and two hearts for eight tricks. If partner has KS and KD I might even make nine tricks.

Mostly I expect 3C to make, though it is possible I take it one off when I'm making three spades.

At the edge of probability of course the opponents can be 64 clubs with 22 spades and we make ten tricks some of the time: not against the laws of nature.

So, while I respect any view of how you score best at pairs, 'ridiculous' seems a lazy evaluation of 3S on this hand. What kind of mental simulations of the hand are others using to discard 3S?

[awm]

Hmm here's my evaluation of 3♠. Partner has something like Kxxxx of spade and maybe another card. If he had more than this he'd probably have bid 2♠ the first time. If he has six spades he can bid 3♠ himself. In fact if parnter has five spades, a stiff club, and a side card he also might have bid 2♠ the first time or might be bidding 3♠ now. We're not going to score any ruffs in my hand (the short trump hand) in a spade contract. We have:

(1) Five spade tricks, or six if partner has singleton club.
(2) Two heart tricks if the ♥A is on my right.
(3) One side trick in partner's hand, if his extra card is a working card.

This means that in order for 3♠ to make, everything has to be just right. If this is in fact the position, then on defense we have 1-2 spades, 2 hearts, 1 club, and partner's side card, so 3♣ is failing. On the other hand if one of the aforementioned things is not happening (partner has two clubs, or the heart ace is on my left, or partner's extra trick doesn't materialize) then 3♠ is failing and 3♣ will still frequently fail.

This hand has a very poor offense-defense ratio. With the 4333 shape, there's no ability to ruff in a spade contract. We have three points wasted in the enemy suit (providing a defensive trick, but offensively nothing). The hearts are pretty likely to break (neither LHO nor PD bid hearts, so there's good odds they are 4333 around the table with pd having 3) so we have exactly as many heart tricks on defense as on offense. The spade ace will likely score on both offense and defense, and the spade queen is probably not all that useful in either case. If this is a 3♠ bid, what takeout doubles are not 3♠ bids? Surely a hand with a weak doubleton club (like the majority of takeout doubles) is a better 3♠ bid than this?

[Halo]

If you judge that oppos have 44 clubs and 22 spades, that's fine. We make 5 tricks in defence (possibly) and could be doubled for -300 (possibly).

I don't agree with your expectation, but that's fine too. I also don't see what relevance your 4333 shape has. Your analysis indicates that the critical factors are opponents shape and whether partner has a singleton - not whether you are are or aren't 4333.

I support partner because he bid spades twice and I have four to AQ, useless in defence (probably) and good for dummy reversal in attack. If we want some numbers on our probabilities, we could start with the frequency of spades 22 versus spades 31 - remembering that Pairs is all about frequency.

[FrancesHinden]

I don't understand why partner has promised five spades. He can see it's love all at matchpoints as well.

I'm not voting, because I wouldn't dream of doubleing 1C on this hand. If that's your style, fine, but because it isn't mine I have no feeling of what is right now, nor what partner should have.

3S is most likely to work against weak opposition who haven't heard of the double card and take 100 against their 110.

[Halo]

Frances

How many times in one auction do you bid with Kxxx.

[Apollo81]

I think I agree with pass.