[kfay]

All white yesterday at the club I held:

AK107 AQ9xx Q10x J

1♥-(2♦)-P-(P); ?

Your bid

[ArtK78]

Yuck.

The "book" action is pass, but that is almost never right at matchpoints.

If we don't pass, then we have several choices:

Double - flawed due to the singleton club. Furthermore, partner did not make a negative double, which he would do almost all of the time with a spade suit and any values at all.
2♥ - overstates the hearts at the expense of the spades. And partner, with any sort of heart fit, would have strained to raise to 2♥.
2♠ - overstates the strength and/or distribution of the hand, And again, partner did not make a negative double, so he probably has either little strength or less than 4 spades.
2NT - overstates the strength of the hand and the diamonds.

As much as I hate to pass, that is probably the best of a bad set of actions available to us.

[aguahombre]

ArtK78, on Oct 23 2009, 10:50 AM, said:

Yuck.

The "book" action is pass, but that is almost never right at matchpoints.

If we don't pass, then we have several choices:

Double - flawed due to the singleton club.  Furthermore, partner did not make a negative double, which he would do almost all of the time with a spade suit and any values at all.
2♥ - overstates the hearts at the expense of the spades.  And partner, with any sort of heart fit, would have strained to raise to 2♥.
2♠ - overstates the strength and/or distribution of the hand,  And again, partner did not make a negative double, so he probably has either little strength or less than 4 spades.
2NT - overstates the strength of the hand and the diamonds.

As much as I hate to pass, that is probably the best of a bad set of actions available to us.

Everything Art said, except "almost never right at matchpoints". I find that good policy actions are right most of the time at any form of scoring.

[jjbrr]

I'd just pass

[Rossoneri]

Tempting to bid, my heart says 2♠ my head says pass.

[andy_h]

Pass and not much quarrel about it. Doing something else may frequently get us too high.

[Echognome]

Partner is not sitting on a penalty double. I would pass fairly easily.

[Jlall]

Would be passing happily if they were red hoping for +200. As it is we could easily be cold for 2M but we can't really get there, 2S bypasses 2H and X risks 3C from partner, and bidding 2H risks missing our spade fit.

Meh, I'll gamble with 2S, F it.

[Phil]

I'm passing, but my partners are taught to show me three card support very liberally here.

At this point I would assume that LHO has bid his hand normally and I have no reason to think otherwise. We have reasonable defense against 2♦ on the obvious heart lead.

Bidding only looks right when we are -50 vs -90 or -100 vs -110. Unless we are making, at all other times its wrong.

[Jlall]

Phil, on Oct 23 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

Bidding only looks right when we are -50 vs -90 or -100 vs -110. Unless we are making, at all other times its wrong.

Why are we so unlikely to make something?

[EricK]

Jlall, on Oct 23 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

Meh, I'll gamble with 2S, F it.

The danger on this hand is that there is no F it.

[Echognome]

Jlall, on Oct 23 2009, 12:25 PM, said:

Would be passing happily if they were red hoping for +200. As it is we could easily be cold for 2M but we can't really get there, 2S bypasses 2H and X risks 3C from partner, and bidding 2H risks missing our spade fit.

Meh, I'll gamble with 2S, F it.

I can certainly understand this as a MP gamble. It's these type of bids that I find hard to adjust to when playing MP's. That is assuming it's a no brainer pass at IMP's as I think it is.

[karlson]

I pass. I think if we're making 2M, they're probably in a really bad spot, and maybe even +150 is possible. Also partner may well raise 2s with some pretty mediocre hands.

[xcurt]

Jlall, on Oct 23 2009, 03:25 PM, said:

Would be passing happily if they were red hoping for +200. As it is we could easily be cold for 2M but we can't really get there, 2S bypasses 2H and X risks 3C from partner, and bidding 2H risks missing our spade fit.

Meh, I'll gamble with 2S, F it.

I agree with you we need to bid -- it's exactly the kind of sick matchpoint position that makes matchpoints so counter-intuitive some times.

I'm bidding 2H, though. Now if anyone bids* anything I'm golden, and even it goes all chance and if I'm wrong I have chances for -50 instead of -90 or -100 instead of -110.

* I didn't say if nobody doubles.

[Fluffy]

When I saw the hand I though double was pretty clear.

I don't think it is so obvious after reading the answer, but I would certainly double.

[aguahombre]

pass was the consensus, until a quality player, thought 2S was ok opposite a pard who couldnt make a neg double. then, the silly double appeared. oh, well -- it is only a forum.

[gwnn]

aguahombre, on Oct 24 2009, 03:39 AM, said:

pass was the consensus, until a quality player, thought 2S was ok opposite a pard who couldnt make a neg double. then, the silly double appeared. oh, well -- it is only a forum.

RU not mentioning his name for fear that you get him confused again.

[nige1]

kfay, on Oct 23 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

All white yesterday at the club I held:
AK107 AQ9xx Q10x J
1♥-(2♦)-P-(P); ?
Your bid

IMO _X = 10, 2♠ = 7, _P = 6, 2♥ =5
Match-points is mainly concerned with frequency of gain. Problems like kfay's occur fairly often and you hope that an astute partner will realize double may be an attempt to make the best of bad choices. The advantage of double is that we are likely to play 2♥ whenever partner has 2-3 ♥, otherwise 2♠ when partner has 3+ ♠. Partner will be reluctant to risk 3♣ if there are other options. Rarely, we may even get to play in 2♦X

[helene_t]

Pass. The only alternative is 2♥, but I don't want p to raise me to 3♥ and I don´t want to keep it open lest someone bids clubs.

[jdonn]

I think pass is clear. Face it, if you double partner is going to bid clubs a LOT. And 2♠ both overstates the hand and often pushes us to 3♥.