[rduran1216]

N/S Vul. Matchpoints, You deal

AKQ6
J
AK1083
732

1D 2C p 2H
2S 3H 3S p
?

[JLOGIC]

N/S vul doesn't help us know the vul very much when we don't know if we are N/S or E/W! Anyways, I would pass regardless.

[CSGibson]

Pass. We've described all of our playing strength already, partner could have bid 4 with the appropriate hand.

[rduran1216]

JLOGIC, on 2012-September-04, 21:17, said:

N/S vul doesn't help us know the vul very much when we don't know if we are N/S or E/W! Anyways, I would pass regardless.

well said sir. Sitting North in first chair.

[rhm]

CSGibson, on 2012-September-04, 21:31, said:

Pass. We've described all of our playing strength already, partner could have bid 4 with the appropriate hand.

Would ♠Jxxx,♥xxx,♦Qxx,♣Kxx have been appropriate?

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2012-September-05, 02:01, said:

Would ♠Jxxx,♥xxx,♦Qxx,♣Kxx have been appropriate?

Yes, that's a clearcut 4♠ bid. It has a double fit and three working cards. I'd want partner to bid 3♠ with Jxxx xxx Qxx xxx or xxxxx xxx xx xxx.

[Fluffy]

I have the feeling that we either set up diamonds and make a lot of tricks of get tap to death, but anyway I pass. 3♠ can be bid on a yarborough

[rhm]

Fluffy, on 2012-September-05, 02:53, said:

3♠ can be bid on a yarborough

It is MP and you are vulnerable. This is not Rubber Bridge.
I doubt that successful pairs tactics requires such a powerhouse for bidding 2♠ in this sequence.
Otherwise your spade fit will get buried frequently.
And consequently raising a secondary suit with a yarborough vulnerable at pairs in a part-score battle unless very distributional is just asking for trouble.

In pairs you have to cater for the likely layouts not the rare ones.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2012-September-05, 04:18, said:

I doubt that successful pairs tactics requires such a powerhouse for bidding 2♠ in this sequence.

What's the least that you might have for a 2♠ bid with this shape at this vulnerability?

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2012-September-05, 04:25, said:

What's the least that you might have for a 2♠ bid with this shape at this vulnerability?

I would bid 2♠ at pairs if the ♠K were a small card.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

Partner's expected to bid game off Jxxx, xxxx, Qxx, xx or xxxxx, xxxx, xx, xx is he ?

Must admit I'd have Xd rather than bidding 2♠.

[CSGibson]

rhm, on 2012-September-05, 02:01, said:

Would ♠Jxxx,♥xxx,♦Qxx,♣Kxx have been appropriate?

Rainer Herrmann

Yes, partner has bid 4♠ with that. We bid 2♠ in a ilve auction opposite a passed partner, this is better than a minimum reverse IMO.

[han]

I would bid 2S with something like AQxx x AKJxxx xx.

[lalldonn]

rhm, on 2012-September-05, 02:01, said:

Would ♠Jxxx,♥xxx,♦Qxx,♣Kxx have been appropriate?

Rainer Herrmann

lol, sarcasm or am I just missing something?

[gnasher]

han, on 2012-September-05, 08:53, said:

I would bid 2S with something like AQxx x AKJxxx xx.

Yes, I think that's a more normal minimum than the one in the original post. I think strong 5-4s tend to double and 6-4s bid 2♠. 5-4 13-counts pass, in my world.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-September-05, 05:34, said:

Partner's expected to bid game off Jxxx, xxxx, Qxx, xx or xxxxx, xxxx, xx, xx is he ?

Must admit I'd have Xd rather than bidding 2♠.

Do you want to be in game opposite those? With clubs 6-2 the first example needs trumps breaking and diamonds coming in, and the second one is just down. Even with clubs 5-3, you're some way from being cold, especially on the second one.

[Phil]

rhm, on 2012-September-05, 02:01, said:

Would ♠Jxxx,♥xxx,♦Qxx,♣Kxx have been appropriate?

Rainer Herrmann

Rumor has it that they still pay game bonuses at MPs.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2012-September-05, 09:12, said:

Do you want to be in game opposite those? With clubs 6-2 the first example needs trumps breaking and diamonds coming in, and the second one is just down. Even with clubs 5-3, you're some way from being cold, especially on the second one.

Sorry, had brain in teams mode rather than pairs so was looking at <50% odds for the vul game being needed. But J10xxx, xxxx, xx, xx is OK for example and J10xx, xxxx, Qxx, xx is not bad. Also on the first, you may have no defence to 4♥ unless the cards lie somewhat favourably for you so -1 may be a very decent result, -1x may not be horrible.

[rhm]

Phil, on 2012-September-05, 09:17, said:

Rumor has it that they still pay game bonuses at MPs.

Rumor has it that frequency of success and failures matters at MPs not bonuses.
The size of the difference in the scores do not matter. 3♠+1 is just as good, if nobody else makes more than 9 tricks in spades.
Your comment is plain silly

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-September-06, 04:08, said:

Sorry, had brain in teams mode rather than pairs so was looking at <50% odds for the vul game being needed. But J10xxx, xxxx, xx, xx is OK for example and J10xx, xxxx, Qxx, xx is not bad. Also on the first, you may have no defence to 4♥ unless the cards lie somewhat favourably for you so -1 may be a very decent result, -1x may not be horrible.

These double-fit hands look very nice, but they don't seem terribly likely to me. As you say, the opponents are close to game. They also have the majority of the high cards. If they really had two eight-card fits with every high-card down to the ten (apart from ♥J), I'd expect them to be in game, not messing about at the three-level. It seems to me far more likely that partner's hand includes three clubs or some values in the opponents' suits, or both.

But at the table I wouldn't really think about any of this - I'd get no further than thinking that I have a minimum hand for my actions so far, a worrying club holding, and a shortage that partner already knows about. He can construct hands too; if he thinks we should be in game opposite this, he should have bid it already.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-September-06, 04:54