[Antrax]

Nobody vulnerable, uncontested auction, matchpoints.
N:
♠Kxx
♥KQxxx
♦Jx
♣xxx
S:
♠AQJxx
♥Ax
♦Qxx
♣xxx

1♠ - 1NT (forcing)
2♣ - 3♠ (3 card limit raise)

The opponents cash their clubs (they break 4-3) and exit a heart from W. Your move. Mine in spoiler:

Spoiler

I decided to play for spades 3-2 and hearts 4-2. Ran the heart to the A, ♠AQ showed a 4-1 split and I was down 2, losing three clubs, two diamonds and a heart

After the game I consulted a good player which said my line is only good for IMPs. Thoughts? Is there a more general principle here?
[edit]
Also, a great hand for losing trick count. I expected to go down even before dummy hit

[shyams]

I would have played the same line as you did.

[Zelandakh]

Your partner's hand is not a limit raise. That means that the room will mostly be in 2S or 3D by E-W. Presumably most of those in 2S will make 8 tricks with hearts 4-2 or worse or 10 tricks with hearts 3-3, assuming spades are not 5-0. Your line is 9 tricks if spades are 3-2 and hearts 3-3 or 4-2. In other words if spades are 3-2 you gain if hearts are 4-2 (140 vs 110) but lose if hearts are 3-3 (140 vs 170). If spades are 4-1, you lose if hearts are 3-3 (-50 vs 170) and lose whatever you do if hearts are 4-2.

So your line plays for spades 3-2 (68%) and hearts specifically 4-2 (48%) (total 33%). The alternative line plays for hearts 3-3 (36%). Against that we have to weigh 3D from E-W and any outliers (some will take the push to 3S, some may well do something weird) where simply going plus is likely to be ok. In other words, I think the 2 lines are too close to say that your line is only good for IMPs.

[gwnn]

Honestly, in most fields if you play like BridgeMaster taught you, you will be fine. Then stop worrying about 5-0's and such and slowly reduce the amount of clever ducks you make (but not to zero!) and you will be superfine.

[Phil]

I wonder how many matchpoints this good player would have received for 3♠ -1 when the field is making 110.

[Antrax]

Thanks Zelandakh, you raise some interesting points. It hadn't occurred to me I'm already anti-field by playing in 3♠. Also, your analysis makes sense regardless. His analysis also relied on the assumption most players will just hope everything breaks or try to ruff a diamond or something, so losing automatically whenever hearts are 3-3 is terrible, whereas if I don't make on the naive line because hearts were 4-2, I'll get an average result.

The scoresheet has one 130 the other way (presumably 3♦+1) two "down 2" and one "down one". So playing the simple line (Win the ace, run five spade winners, hope for a heart pitch or hearts 3-3) would've actually been best.

[jschafer]

I would be happy with 9 tricks when the opponents have 5 winners off the top, regardless of the scoring method. I certainly do not expect 3♠= to be an average board.

[Antrax]

Phil, on 2011-November-23, 04:47, said:

I wonder how many matchpoints this good player would have received for 3♠ -1 when the field is making 110.

0, I'm guessing. Just a general question, what adjective can I use to indicate that someone really is a good player, i.e. not because I'm a B/I and he can kick my ass, but because he's a BBO star, WC player, vugraph commenter etc etc. This is someone whose opinion I think I can trust, up to the general human tendency to result and his aggressive bidding style. So, a serious question, what is the keyword I can use to indicate "a really good player, not just the club expert"?

[Zelandakh]

If (s)he is genuinely a WC player (and not just a BBO Star) then "WC player", "US (or whatever) international", or some-such would cover it. If they are merely very good then "genuine expert" or "Scottish international" would probably cover it. OK, the last one was a bit of a joke, my being English and all.

[Phil]

Antrax, on 2011-November-23, 07:37, said:

So, a serious question, what is the keyword I can use to indicate "a really good player, not just the club expert"?

"HanP-like"

[ArtK78]

Why do we expect the field to be in 2♠ +110? Can't anyone in the field balance to 3 of a minor and force our side up to 3♠?

[Phil]

ArtK78, on 2011-November-23, 12:19, said:

Why do we expect the field to be in 2♠ +110? Can't anyone in the field balance to 3 of a minor and force our side up to 3♠?

?

[JLOGIC]

Phil, on 2011-November-23, 15:12, said:

?

Given that spades were 4-1 and hearts were 4-2, it sounds like 3D is cold and they probably have a reasonable chance of getting in.

[JLOGIC]

Zelandakh, on 2011-November-23, 03:36, said:

So your line plays for spades 3-2 (68%) and hearts specifically 4-2 (48%) (total 33%). The alternative line plays for hearts 3-3 (36%). Against that we have to weigh 3D from E-W and any outliers (some will take the push to 3S, some may well do something weird) where simply going plus is likely to be ok. In other words, I think the 2 lines are too close to say that your line is only good for IMPs.

This assumes basically random plays by the opps. Not that that is necessarily a bad assumption, but I do think the opps are more likely to defend passively and shift to hearts when they are not looking at 3 hearts, if the opps had 3 hearts they would be able to see the danger of this play much more easily.

[Antrax]

Yes, this is exactly what happened, the player with two hearts and four small spades shifted to a heart. At the table partner told me I could know hearts were 4-2 because west high-lowed on hearts, but Justin's argument also makes perfect sense, and doesn't require me to pay attention to the opponents' signals (which I'd like to be able to do, but I'm still working on lower level counting).

[Phil]

JLOGIC, on 2011-November-23, 15:26, said:

Given that spades were 4-1 and hearts were 4-2, it sounds like 3D is cold and they probably have a reasonable chance of getting in.

Very true, but when we are playing 3♠, how can we possibly know this until after we see the split?

JLOGIC, on 2011-November-23, 15:26, said:

This assumes basically random plays by the opps. Not that that is necessarily a bad assumption, but I do think the opps are more likely to defend passively and shift to hearts when they are not looking at 3 hearts, if the opps had 3 hearts they would be able to see the danger of this play much more easily.

Yes, strong inference on the non-diamond plays. However, I am not sure that this indicates spades are 4-1, which is the crux of the problem.