[whereagles]

Matchpoints, expert pard, intermediate field.

NV vs V, you hold:

♠ A9
♥ AJ853
♦ T43
♣ A42

RHO deals and opens 3♣.

Pass or bid?

[655321]

Wow, I see that 5 comedians have voted for 3♥!

[ulven]

I'm one of them. I really believe in entering auctions.

[P_Marlowe]

ulven, on May 4 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

I'm one of them. I really believe in entering auctions.

I am the 9th.

[hanp]

And I thought 63321 would be the ONLY 3H bidder.

[jdonn]

I have a lot of respect for Ulven. But if I'm giving my true feelings, and maybe I'm just getting old and crotchety, 3♥ is a complete joke. I can't deny it could work if partner has just the strongest type of hand that can't enter, like a balanced 13 count, but it's the type of call by which 4 digit numbers are made. That's of course far from the only reason to pass, but it's the most dramatic.

[Phil]

3♥ isn't a joke, Josh. Partner will have x / xx most of the time, especially with a vulnerable preemptor on our right.

We can't rely on partner to 'balance' with the right 8 count that produces a game.

Sometimes we are playing a silly 5-1 fit, but IMO, its too dangerous to pass.

[jdonn]

Phil, on May 4 2009, 10:34 AM, said:

3♥ isn't a joke, Josh. Partner will have x / xx most of the time, especially with a vulnerable preemptor on our right.

We can't rely on partner to 'balance' with the right 8 count that produces a game.

Sometimes we are playing a silly 5-1 fit, but IMO, its too dangerous to pass.

Whose hand are we supposed to bid, ours or partner's? I mean this a lot less mean-ly than it will probably sound, but that you have chosen 3♥ is far from convincing me that it's not a joke.

[Phil]

jdonn, on May 4 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

Phil, on May 4 2009, 10:34 AM, said:

3♥ isn't a joke, Josh. Partner will have x / xx most of the time, especially with a vulnerable preemptor on our right.

We can't rely on partner to 'balance' with the right 8 count that produces a game.

Sometimes we are playing a silly 5-1 fit, but IMO, its too dangerous to pass.

Whose hand are we supposed to bid, ours or partner's? I mean this a lot less mean-ly than it will probably sound, but that you have chosen 3♥ is far from convincing me that it's not a joke.

I don't think you sound mean if I read your comments correctly, but I think the community would get more out of your comments if you are more clear about your ideas, instead of just saying:

Quote

... that you (Phil) have chosen 3♥ is far from convincing me that it's not a joke

As far as your previous comments above, I think its far less likely that partner holds:

KJx, Qxx, AQxx, Jxx

than

Qxxx, Qxxx, Axxx, x

although both will produce game a lot of the time.

As far as bidding partner's hand is concerned - when a frequent amount of the time pard won't be bidding with the critical hands (when it matters) - there's nothing wrong with doing so.

[JLOL]

ulven, on May 4 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

I'm one of them. I really believe in entering auctions.

LOL

[Phil]

JLOL, on May 4 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

ulven, on May 4 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

I'm one of them. I really believe in entering auctions.

LOL

JLOL v Ulven....

Good cage match

[hanp]

Except this isn't an interesting question. A good rule for competitive auctions is: if 655321 passes, it's a pass.

[jdonn]

Phil, on May 4 2009, 11:00 AM, said:

I don't think you sound mean if I read your comments correctly, but I think the community would get more out of your comments if you are more clear about your ideas, instead of just saying...

Well I was responding to a specific comment. I think of bidding on this hand sort of like I would think of overcalling 3NT here on a random 13 count. Yes it could work, in the sense there is a non-unlikely hand type or two that make game opposite our hand. But there are two problems too huge to ignore. It partner is weak and/or the breaks are bad we will be doubled and killed (not just beaten 500, I'm talking absolute slaughterfest). And that even if we can make what we bid, partner will have a right to expect more and take us too high. For example if he has a relatively balanced 8 or 9 count with three card support on the example he will raise to what is probably a hopeless game.

If you overcall 3♥ on this, then let's say we have about four tricks. That means each trick partner provides is a step down from 1400, which is what we go for if he has none. Of course if hearts break 5-x or worse then we might even go for 1700 but I'll ignore that possibility. So you are going to donate 1400s and 1100s and 800s, but for what? Game if partner is something like 4441, or balanced. (Not partscores since if you can make a partscore partner will bid game.) Well take your 4441 8 count. If partner is a little less game probably doesn't make but he is bidding it. If partner is just a little more he is balancing anyway. Similar logic on if partner is a balanced hand and you can make 3NT. You are taking a gigantic (that word is not an exageration at all) risk to aim at such a tiny target, where if you are right you get 420 or 400.

Why?

[JLOL]

I can't believe this is a real thread. If you bid 3H with this, not only might you get doubled pretty easily, but partner will bid on way too many hands. If he bdis 4H or 3S or 3N, may get doubeld there, or you may just go minus instead of plus (very very often). If you actually do have a game, it is quite likely partner would have balanced anyways. This is fundamental bridge, and if you are overcalling you are just doing something that is so grossly unsound. If you want to cater to the small subset of hands where game makes and partner cant balance, good luck.

edit: sorry I repeated some of what jdonn said.

[ArtK78]

Hard to add to what Jdonn and JLOL have said. This hand is just not worth a direct action over a preempt.

I am surprised that there is a debate on this point.

[kenrexford]

IMO, pass is right. Bidding is a symptom of partners who don't balance enough in these auctions.

[Phil]

jdonn, on May 4 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

Phil, on May 4 2009, 11:00 AM, said:

I don't think you sound mean if I read your comments correctly, but I think the community would get more out of your comments if you are more clear about your ideas, instead of just saying...

Well I was responding to a specific comment. I think of bidding on this hand sort of like I would think of overcalling 3NT here on a random 13 count. Yes it could work, in the sense there is a non-unlikely hand type or two that make game opposite our hand. But there are two problems too huge to ignore. It partner is weak and/or the breaks are bad we will be doubled and killed (not just beaten 500, I'm talking absolute slaughterfest). And that even if we can make what we bid, partner will have a right to expect more and take us too high. For example if he has a relatively balanced 8 or 9 count with three card support on the example he will raise to what is probably a hopeless game.

If you overcall 3♥ on this, then let's say we have about four tricks. That means each trick partner provides is a step down from 1400, which is what we go for if he has none. Of course if hearts break 5-x or worse then we might even go for 1700 but I'll ignore that possibility. So you are going to donate 1400s and 1100s and 800s, but for what? Game if partner is something like 4441, or balanced. (Not partscores since if you can make a partscore partner will bid game.) Well take your 4441 8 count. If partner is a little less game probably doesn't make but he is bidding it. If partner is just a little more he is balancing anyway. Similar logic on if partner is a balanced hand and you can make 3NT. You are taking a gigantic (that word is not an exageration at all) risk to aim at such a tiny target, where if you are right you get 420 or 400.

Why?

Josh we are NV. If we are taking 4 tricks, we are starting at a base of 1100, not 1400. 1400 is nearly impossible. If they try to draw our trump, we'll score four tricks.

1100 would be ugly, but they are making a game so we lose 10 or 11. About the same if you miss game.

One more trick and we have a 5 IMP loss against their game, which isn't a bad downside scenario, if things are truly rotten. There's also some risk of getting nailed for 300 (maybe 500) against their 110 / 130 for 5-7 IMPs too, but these partials don't get doubled in practice very often.

I agree with the balanced 8-9 we might get too high. But we aren't down yet.

Sure, if pard has some unbalanced 11's he'll balance. But I will also get to slam when pard has some unbalanced 14's (you won't). And are 4441 7-9 counts and balanced 12-14's really unlikely here?

Frankly, I don't know why you are arguing so strongly for a pass here, because I think its close. Surely you'd bid with a 3532 or the ♥10?

[mtvesuvius]

PASS. Refer to Jdonn's or JLOL's posts for reasoning...

[jdonn]

Phil:

- Since you point out I had the vul wrong, I'll return the favor and point out that it's matchpoints. Not that I think it's very close at imps either...

- Yes if partner raises you too high and you reach a bad game you 'arent down yet', just like if he raises you to a good game you 'havent made yet'. I don't see the point, if partner has that particular hand and you overcall you will reach a bad game, period.

- NO I would not overcall with 3532 or the ten of hearts!!! You don't see why I feel so strongly because you think it's close? I'll help you see. It's not close!

[mikeh]

Late to the thread again.

I am not as rabid on this as either josh or justin, but i do feel that pass is clearly the best call.

Bidding gains only when:

1. We can make whatever contract we arrive at AND we can't get there from here after a pass

2. We fail at whatever contract we arrive at, but it is a better score than we'd get after passing, and we can't get there after passing

3. We can make a slam but partner won't try for it after balancing, because he won't play us to have 3 aces.

All of these scenarios are possible, especially the first, but each is improbable either alone or in aggregate, imo.

OTOH, not only may we:

3. go for a number because LHO is loaded and the doubling starts now,

4. get too high because partner will play us for more

but we may even be trading a small minus for a small plus. We do, after all, have 3 tricks on defence, and there will be a host of hands on which partner provides 2 or 3 defensive tricks while not providing the help we need to make anything we bid... and not having the hand on which to balance.

So at imps, the potential size of a disaster coupled with the small number of hands where bidding now is the only way to get to the best spot, persuades me to pass. At mps, the size of the disaster is less important, but the risk of trading a plus for a minus is correspondingly more significant, since it adds to the frequency of a bad outcome for the bidders.