[awm]

Playing MP in a fairly weak field; partner is an intermediate player (probably average for the field). You hold:

♠AKTxxx
♥Kxx
♦x
♣Q9x

For whatever reason, after opening 1♠ you decide to rebid 2♣ over partner's forcing 1NT. Now partner finds a 2♥ call. What's you next call? Does the form of scoring effect your decision?

[hanp]

I think 2C was very bad but it seems to have worked out well. I would bid 3H now, closer to 4H than anything else.

[JLOL]

2C is horrifying. I would bid 3H now, don't think it's close.

[aguahombre]

adam obviously sat in for the player who bid 2c after it happened.

[Phil]

This isn't the hand for 2♣. Not close! Qxxxxx, Axx, x, AKQ, and maybe.

Agree that 3♥ looks obvious now.

[kenrexford]

2♣ isn't THAT bad. Several ways to win, this being one. Partner could also have five+ clubs and a stiff or void in spades where 2♣ is a nice contract. I would'nt do it, but I'm not that offended by the call.

As to partner's 2♥ call, I'll assume that you are not playing Bart or that might have been mentioned. So, I think 3♥ stands out. Change my hand to Kxx in clubs and Qxx in hearts, and I might want to bid 3♦ IF that will be taken as a stiff with support.

[awm]

For all those raising to 3♥... suppose you get to 4♥ and it makes. Do you really expect your matchpoint score for +420 to be substantially better than your matchpoint score for +170?

[Phil]

awm, on May 31 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

For all those raising to 3♥... suppose you get to 4♥ and it makes. Do you really expect your matchpoint score for +420 to be substantially better than your matchpoint score for +170?

Yes I think +420 is a lot better than +170. I'd say 30 to 40% better.

I suppose you are saying that we are already in a plus position by finding our 5-3 or 6-3 in hearts. However, this supposes that:

- Other tables won't be bidding 2♥ over 1♠. If they don't play 2/1 this is certainly the case;

- Other tables wouldn't have the option of an invitational 3♥ over 1♠;

- Other tables won't bid 2N with five hearts and 10-11 count.

- It also supposes that hearts is clearly a better spot than spades. I think its quite possible that spades plays equal to hearts.

[hanp]

I think Phil's last case is most likely. Give partner something like Qx AQxxxx xxx Jx.

[Apollo81]

I think 4♥ is pretty ridiculous. I think the hand is barely a 3♥ bid given the conditions.

[jdonn]

awm, on May 31 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

For all those raising to 3♥... suppose you get to 4♥ and it makes. Do you really expect your matchpoint score for +420 to be substantially better than your matchpoint score for +170?

Yes. I think one of the biggest flaws most players have at matchpoints is presuming to know they are doing well/badly before there is strong enough evidence, and letting that convince them to do something abnormal and bad. Just play good bridge, you will get the most matchpoints that way.

[awm]

Phil, on May 31 2009, 04:51 PM, said:

awm, on May 31 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

For all those raising to 3♥... suppose you get to 4♥ and it makes. Do you really expect your matchpoint score for +420 to be substantially better than your matchpoint score for +170?

Yes I think +420 is a lot better than +170. I'd say 30 to 40% better.

I suppose you are saying that we are already in a plus position by finding our 5-3 or 6-3 in hearts. However, this supposes that:

- Other tables won't be bidding 2♥ over 1♠. If they don't play 2/1 this is certainly the case;

- Other tables wouldn't have the option of an invitational 3♥ over 1♠;

- Other tables won't bid 2N with five hearts and 10-11 count.

- It also supposes that hearts is clearly a better spot than spades. I think its quite possible that spades plays equal to hearts.

This is a sort of interesting post, as it seems to be supposing that partner has 10-11 with hearts. In that case it does seem clear to raise, as we could easily have a game and we might have gotten to that game without the weird 2♣ rebid, since the auction might start 1♠-1n-2♠-3♠ or 1♠-2♥ (forcing one round) at other tables.

But when I learned 2/1, 2♥ in this auction was normally 5-9 or so with hearts. There's no reason to suppose partner would have bid 2♥ in standard with such a hand, or that partner has a rebid over 1♠-1n-2♠, or that partner's hand is good enough for an invitational jump (in fact all of those seem counter-indicated). It also means that there is a real chance of getting too high by bidding 3♥.

[fromageGB]

I don't understand these replies. Pass is obvious the way I play it. Partner has made the weakest sequence possible. OK, we have a probable 9 card fit, but maybe less than half the pack. If he had an invitational hand there are other bids. I reckon we are on to a good score as it is.

[aguahombre]

can I pull back my 3H call from the poll? I knee-jerked instead of pulling out the pass card.

[CSGibson]

3♥. If partner is really that weak, why aren't opponents bidding? Only reason I can think of is that partner has 4 diamonds, or else is on the top end of the 2♥ bid. I think our hands might fit together pretty well if partner does have some diamonds. x Axxxxx xxxx xx has play for 4 hearts, and that's not even best case scenerio (doubleton spade instead of club).

Anyway, I'm (sorta) patterning out with 3 hearts, my hand is worth it.

[gnasher]

I don't see why 2♥ promises six. What would he do with x Q109xx Kxxx Jxx or x Q109xx Kxxxx Jx?

This illustrates one of the problems with playing 2/1 without sophisticated methods. It doesn't work well to have 2♥ range from one of those hands to xx AJxxxx Axx xx.

[helene_t]

aguahombre, on Jun 1 2009, 11:25 PM, said:

can I pull back my 3H call from the poll? I knee-jerked instead of pulling out the pass card.

We could swap, I voted pass but I am OK to trade with a 3♥ vote.