[rogerclee]

Matchpoints, All White, Fourth Seat

♠AKxxx ♥Kx ♦Kxx ♣xxx

(1♥)-2♣-(3♥)-?

1♥ is 11-15 HCP, 3♥ is preemptive and could be total junk.

[gwnn]

3NT, I'm not proud of this. But pd will raise 3♠ on things like Tx or so and I'm not very confident re that 5-2 game. Well, 3NT can go down a lot, but what are we going to do?

[the hog]

3S. I would certainly not crime 3NT either and in fact that may be a better bid.

[Cascade]

We would double - not penalties - as and alternative to 3NT. Partner might bid 3NT with a stopper. 3NT is too unilateral for me but maybe its necessary at Matchpoints,

[Fluffy]

I think double is clear.

[whereagles]

Pard's expectancy should be something like 2236. Seems like 3NT should statistically be better than 3♠.

[ewj]

Hm, 3♠ or dbl for me...reckon I'd go with the former

[Gerben42]

In bidding problems, the solution is usually Pass, Dbl or Cuebid. We are too strong for pass, too weak for cuebid. WTP

[kfay]

Tough one. I'd probably bid 3♠ at the table. But I voted for 3NT

[Apollo81]

3NT, good problem.

[han]

Yes good problem. My first reaction was 3NT but now I actually think that 3S might be better. (Is it forcing?)

Not sure what good double will do, if partner can bid 3NT over the double then he should be able to bid it over 3S as well.

[whereagles]

of course it is forcing

[han]

How about this:

(1H)-2C-(2H)-2S

Also forcing Nuno?

[whereagles]

If RHO acts after our overcall, I let go the forcing character only in the case of a 1/1 and 2/1. Since this is a 2/2, I still consider it forcing.

[mike777]

tough one...I will try double.

[helene_t]

I thought French standard was only 2/1 not forcing. In the case when RHO passed, that is. Maybe 2♠ should not be forcing based on the theory that 2♥ showed some values.

[jdonn]

Neither 3NT nor double makes sense to me. Especially double, we can't reach 3NT then anyway so why would we mislead about our spade length? And since we almost surely have just one heart stopper, 3NT is nothing more than a prayer clubs will run. Maybe but I'm not just assuming it when I don't even have a club honor.

[awm]

Here's a weird random thought.

Take the auction 1♥-2♣-3♥.

If you double, a lot of times partner will bid 3NT or something at the four-level. The only time you can stop below game or 4♣ is when partner actually finds a bunch of spades and bids 3♠. But this is actually the most likely time for you to have game, since you actually found a good fit in a major suit. So it seems either most of the times partner bids 3♠ you will end in 4♠, or you're getting a lot of poor results when you double, partner doesn't have spades, and you land too high.

With this in mind, maybe it would be reasonable to play that over double, opener's 3♠ bid is artificial, denying spade length and trying to keep 3NT in play. This helps with a wide range of hands where responder has 4-5♠ and a ♥ stopper and needs to "guess" what to show knowing that the other will be lost forever. The only loss is hands where you actually have a spade fit and want to play exactly three spades.

Anyways, while this is all theoretically interesting I'm not going to just assume partner will be on the same wavelength and bid this way. Without any such agreement, I'll bid 3♠. Sure, partner might raise on doubleton, but I have made game in a 5-2 fit before and there's no reason 4♠ has to be worse than 3NT if this set of events comes to pass.

[mikeh]

I bid 3♠.... forcing.

It has to be forcing, else we have no way of forcing while searching for our best game. While there will be hands on which we'd like to be able to bid '3♠ non-forcing', the benefit of that approach is marginal, and far less than the benefits from playing it forcing. Preempts work.. we can't have it both ways, and we should choose the approach that has the greatest utility overall.

Since slam is not impossible, and game often available, we need to cater to these possibilities far more than trying to hit the right partial, starting at the 3-level.

As for where we end up...this is tough.

3N may work out, but bidding it is unilateral... it usually ends the auction... LHO will certainly be passing 3N anytime he can beat it (Qxx AQJxx xxx Ax as an example) and he isn't likely to save anyway... if he does, he'll be 6-4 or wilder. Now, we can back into 4♠ if lho pulls 3N, but he isn't likely to do so and definitely won't when he can beat it.

3♠ actually doesn't give up on 3N. Of course, the odds are that partner can't bid 3N... but if he does, we know we are in the right spot.

Meanwhile, there are hands on which 4♠ makes and 3N fails, hands on which 4♠ fails (and won't be reached) on which 5♣ makes.

So I think 3♠ is more flexible, compared to the unilateral guess of 3N. I'd rate 3♠ 100, 3N 90 and double 50.

Double, to me, is insane.

Yes, it is values with no clear bid, but it will reach 3N only when partner has a stopper, so that either 3♠ or 3N would work just as well. It will reach spades only when partner holds 4 of them, and then 3♠ works as well or better, and it will never find a 5-3 spade fit... unless we are planning on torturing partner with 4♠ over 4 minor by him. And, if he does pass, are we really going to be happy?

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Mar 27 2008, 08:03 AM, said:

Neither 3NT nor double makes sense to me. Especially double, we can't reach 3NT then anyway so why would we mislead about our spade length? And since we almost surely have just one heart stopper, 3NT is nothing more than a prayer clubs will run. Maybe but I'm not just assuming it when I don't even have a club honor.

LOL exactly Josh. This is what I said to Roger last night.

3N is such a swingy action but obv can be right. Double is too modern for me.