[shevek]

---

Matchpoints
We let them play and make 2♣ here when we make at least 8 tricks in 2♠ & can shoot 3♣.
In your style & method, might you reach 2♠? Or 2♦?

Yes, it would good if South could double 2♣ for takeout but that would be an unusual treatment.

[mike777]

shevek, on 2012-July-20, 22:41, said:

---

Matchpoints
We let them play and make 2♣ here when we make at least 8 tricks in 2♠ & can shoot 3♣.
In your style & method, might you reach 2♠? Or 2♦?

Yes, it would good if South could double 2♣ for takeout but that would be an unusual treatment.

great post

great questions



btw I would not do better so great learning post.

[jdeegan]

Most players in the U.S. play the support double. That leaves 2♦ or Pass, and your ♦ suit isn't really good enough to play well opposite two small or a singleton. Imho, Pass is the preferred call with 2♦ OK if you need a board or if you sense the opponents are likely to take the push (possibly because they lack confidence in their ability to defend).

[Cyberyeti]

Support doubles are great when they come up but leave you exposed in situations like this, blame the system. Alternatively discuss whether you're going to allow N to double to show 4 spades and not totally bereft in diamonds without necessarily having extra values to cover this.

I play the unusual treatment of X by S showing spades so it's easy.

[jdeegan]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-21, 02:00, said:

Support doubles are great when they come up but leave you exposed in situations like this, blame the system. Alternatively discuss whether you're going to allow N to double to show 4 spades and not totally bereft in diamonds without necessarily having extra values to cover this.

I play the unusual treatment of X by S showing spades so it's easy.

I think the double to show ♦ and ♠ is a fine way to play, but with a minimum hand a double is imo, too aggressive. This example is a 20-20 HCP split with pard having pretty much the magic minimum hand.

[jdeegan]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-21, 02:00, said:

Support doubles are great when they come up but leave you exposed in situations like this, blame the system. Alternatively discuss whether you're going to allow N to double to show 4 spades and not totally bereft in diamonds without necessarily having extra values to cover this.

I play the unusual treatment of X by S showing spades so it's easy.

I think the double to show ♦ and ♠ is a fine way to play, but with a minimum hand a double is imo, too aggressive. This example is a 20-20 HCP split with pard having pretty much the magic minimum hand.

[wank]

oh dear. noone seems to have noticed the obvious: north can reopen with a double and correct 2H to 2S if necessary (to play a 4-3 spade fit rather than a 4-2 heart fit). easy. he's got 4 spades. it's not hard for him to picture south having exactly what he's got.

he knows south's minimum so there's no danger of being hung. anyway, south can see there colours. he knows north should be protecting routinely here at MPs.

[jdeegan]

It is obvious that N with nothing extra can save the day on this hand by bidding? Is it really worth the risk if pard does not have four spades. Sometimes it is right just to sell out even if the result is an average minus. Bridge bidding is such a limited vocabulary that its imperfections have to be respected.

[wank]

jdeegan, on 2012-July-21, 11:02, said:

It is obvious that N with nothing extra can save the day on this hand by bidding? Is it really worth the risk if pard does not have four spades. Sometimes it is right just to sell out even if the result is an average minus. Bridge bidding is such a limited vocabulary that its imperfections have to be respected.

the answer to your questions is yes. it's pairs. it's love all. what shape must south have for it to be bad to bid? 3253 maybe, maybe not. 3244 isn't very likely and could still be right.

[nigel_k]

South is fixed by the methods but North should definitely double non-vul at matchpoints. North's hand has actually improved because he has nothing in hearts and there was no support double, and he has nothing wasted in clubs. If you don't have an eight card fit somewhere, partner likely has a penalty pass.

[kenrexford]

Obviously, this is extremely easy with canape. First of all, East never mentions clubs at the two-lebvel, as 1♠-P-2♠ ends that. Second, if North had been 3-4 in the majors, South rebidding 2♦ after opening 1♠ is equally easy.

[Vampyr]

shevek, on 2012-July-20, 22:41, said:

Yes, it would good if South could double 2♣ for takeout but that would be an unusual treatment.

Almost everyone I know plays this "unusual treatment".

[Mbodell]

I play with some partners that X here promises 4 spades so I could make that call with the S hand. I'm not sure I would, since I'm such a minimum opener though. I much prefer the auctions though when S just opens 1nt to begin with, not many opps playing 2 after that.

Of course on this hand I might give up -300 or so.

[jdeegan]

At the risk of being tiresome, I must point out that this is a 20-20 HCP hand with exactly 16 tricks. Only at MP's does it make a tinkers' damn if you get this one right. The whole structure of any commonly used bidding system is oriented toward reaching games and slams. You just can't have perfection with your limited bidding vocabulary. Learn to defend. Even if you lose this particular auction, accurate defense should get you an average minus assuming you get your tricks on defense.

[StevenG]

jdeegan, on 2012-July-22, 04:57, said:

The whole structure of any commonly used bidding system is oriented toward reaching games and slams.

Why? Most of us play MPs week in week out at our club, and very little IMPs. There is absolutely no reason to optimise our bidding system for IMPs over MPs.

[Antrax]

I think the reason why is that authors of bidding systems mostly play IMPs. I do wish I knew how to un-orient them.

[Cyberyeti]

StevenG, on 2012-July-22, 05:54, said:

Why? Most of us play MPs week in week out at our club, and very little IMPs. There is absolutely no reason to optimise our bidding system for IMPs over MPs.

Yes but a lot don't, I play basically 1 or 2 pairs competitions a year and used to play at a teams only club till it became a casualty of EBU pay to play. Some clubs (YC certainly used to 30 years ago) have a butler pairs night which was often the one I attended (so teams tactics more or less).

The tournaments that REALLY matter tend to be teams rather than pairs, at least in the UK.

[rhm]

Antrax, on 2012-July-22, 06:17, said:

I think the reason why is that authors of bidding systems mostly play IMPs. I do wish I knew how to un-orient them.

I do not understand why this is not a problem at IMPs
Are only game and slam swings important at IMPs?
Making 2♠ instead of letting them make 2♣ is 5 IMPs or half of a game swing.
In fact the decision of bidding a nonvulnerable game makes a similar difference

Frankly I do not see this issue here as one where there is marked difference between IMPs and Matchpoint tactics.
Fighting for the part-score is important at any form of scoring.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

I like to play support doubles, but only if spades have been bid by somebody or spades can still be bid at the one level.
Otherwise I prefer double for takeout.
The above is a good example why.

Rainer Herrmann

[pigpenz]

Antrax, on 2012-July-22, 06:17, said:

I think the reason why is that authors of bidding systems mostly play IMPs. I do wish I knew how to un-orient them.

when was the last time your read about a matchpoint event in Bridge World?
even the ACBL has sold out to imps except for national events.