[nekthen]

As a match play question I think it is clear to open 2♦ even if you value this as a 20 count. Opps are going to open 2N and we want to do the same if we are allowed.

Without the match play scenario I open 1♦

[Tramticket]

Having decided to go low, I had second thoughts, largely for the reasons suggested by ggwhiz and nethken - the state of the match. I bid 3NT at my second turn and reached a contract with no legitimate play:

---

The play was not great by either side. A club was led to my king the and I have no choice but to try and set up some spades. East wins the ♠A, but fears that I still hold the guarded queen and decides to switch. This must be wrong - west can't have another club if I have the guarded Q. Unfortunately, I followed through this reasoning and convinced myself that the switch only made sense if east had overcalled on a five-card suit.

I played off one top heart, two diamonds and all of the spades. I have arrived in dummy and have seen east show up with ♦Q10 and both opponents discarded clubs on the fourth round of spades. I have been lucky that spades have been 3-3. Can I be lucky enough to find west with the ♥Q? It seems unlikely, given east’s overcall. But if east has ♥QX, I can exit in clubs and east will have to lead up to my ♥KJ at the end … As you can see, that didn’t go well!

[P_Marlowe]

 ahydra, on 2018-December-12, 16:39, said:

I got 21 balanced. I got a system bid for 21 balanced. WTP?

Choosing the low road got me something useful though - the knowledge that opps are threatening to run clubs. I'd be nervous about 3NT so would bid 3C to ask for some reinforcements in that suit, planning to play either 3NT or 4H (even on a 4-3).

@P_Marlowe: are you sure 2NT is forcing?

ahydra

Why not? I know, that we may only have a 4-3 fit, partner cannot know this,
I never denied a 5 card suit.
If he passes 2NT, and 2NT goes down, when 3H is making he should be prepared
to pay me a round.
For me 2NT is a trial bid, ..., I am assuming we play something like trial bids.

[Tramticket]

 P_Marlowe, on 2018-December-13, 12:32, said:

I am assuming we play something like trial bids.

2NT is a trial bid based on a 4-card opening (about 17-18 HCP). Suits would be trial bids based on a 5-card suit.

[P_Marlowe]

 Tramticket, on 2018-December-13, 12:54, said:

2NT is a trial bid based on a 4-card opening (about 17-18 HCP). Suits would be trial bids based on a 5-card suit.

Ok, this makes 2NT unsuitable, downgrading is ok, but not by a complete king.
Given that, and that the over trial bids show 5 carders, I would go with 3NT,
this still keeps open to play 4H, if we have a 44.
I am writing this, fully aware, that the 3NT bid, was not a success.

[rhm]

Downgrading to 20 HCP is reasonable.
Those who never downgrade simply mistrust their own hand evaluation skills, probably rightly so.
The point of hand evaluation is not to overbid or underbid, but to bid hands of equivalent strength the same. Scoring and vulnerability does not matter for hand evaluation.
HCP alone is only a rough approximation of a hand's strength.

So if 1♥ is the correct opening with at most 20 HCP and a 4 card major so be it.
However I consider the raise on the South hand the real culprit, not because South has only three card support, but because South is weak and 4333.
What is South worried about when the bidding is still open to North?
South should simply pass over 2♣ and bid 2♥ should North reopen with a double or bid 2♦.
Bidding 3NT over the "free" raise is obvious.

All blame goes to South. Bidding uninvited 2♥ with such a flat hand and no HCP is asking for trouble.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

 nekthen, on 2018-December-13, 06:13, said:

As a match play question I think it is clear to open 2♦ even if you value this as a 20 count. Opps are going to open 2N and we want to do the same if we are allowed.

I never understood why I should mimic the mistakes of my opponents.
A great way of losing any match.

In Bridge as in life I follow my convictions, not the idiosyncrasies of others.
If I am wrong at least I learn something.

Rainer Herrmann

[mikeh]

 rhm, on 2018-December-14, 08:00, said:

I never understood why I should mimic the mistakes of my opponents.
A great way of losing any match.



Rainer Herrmann

I think it more accurate to say it is a great way of avoiding a win. After all, playing exactly as your opponents do rates to lead to a tie

But I second the underlying notion. If we believe that we are better than the opponents, why on earth would we seek to emulate them? One reason we are better (assuming we are, and are not merely deluding ourselves) is that our judgment is superior. So use that superior judgment.

Interestingly, if we think that the opps are better than we are, again we should not be attempting to emulate them. For one thing, we likely can't. We won't see the nuances that they see, so we can't put ourselves in their position. Indeed, we need to play a little different, recognizing that most of the time that will be losing bridge...but we rate to lose most of the time. By playing a little, not much, off-base we may get lucky. Example: We hold A10x in dummy opposite KJ98x. With no clue from the bidding, we play A and then run the 10, catering to 4-1 on our right. If facing a significantly stronger team, try the K then low to the 10. It is an equal proposition when the suit breaks 3-2, which is most of the time, and you know that your stronger opp will make the technically correct play, so you are creating a swing...usually against yourself but in your favour often enough to be worth it when the opps have you outgunned.

Back to the problem: whether one thinks the opps are better, the same or worse, it seems right to 'downgrade' this sterile 21 count. The opps, regardless of skill level, will open 2N because this hand is in range (as it would be for me: 20-21 2N: I don't care if I call this 20 or 21). So we downgrade if we are better than they are, because our judgment tells us this isn't a 21-22 hand. We downgrade if they are the same as us, because our methods are different, so we stick with our methods, and judgment. We downgrade if they are better than us, because we want to create a swing situation.

[Cyberyeti]

 rhm, on 2018-December-14, 08:00, said:

I never understood why I should mimic the mistakes of my opponents.
A great way of losing any match.

In Bridge as in life I follow my convictions, not the idiosyncrasies of others.
If I am wrong at least I learn something.

Rainer Herrmann

Because if you're 30 IMPS up and you reckon they are about to bid a 10% game that makes, you want to be in it too.

[ggwhiz]

 mikeh, on 2018-December-14, 10:42, said:

Back to the problem: whether one thinks the opps are better, the same or worse,

This all applies to the first 1/2 of a KO match but when I'm up 30 I want to be in identical contracts for the most part afterwards.

There are many examples of strong teams in an NABC event up 40 or 50 playing the last segment to bend but not break, prevent defence in football etc.

[mikeh]

 ggwhiz, on 2018-December-14, 12:34, said:

This all applies to the first 1/2 of a KO match but when I'm up 30 I want to be in identical contracts for the most part afterwards.

There are many examples of strong teams in an NABC event up 40 or 50 playing the last segment to bend but not break, prevent defence in football etc.

If you read accounts where teams have come from far behind in important matches, you will see that the trailing team often intentionally takes slightly off-kilter actions, and that their opponents are trying to play down the middle.

There is a very good reason for this, and for why we tend to notice examples of miraculous comebacks. The usual outcome for a good team trailing another good team by 50+ imps with 16 boards to play (back when long matches were usually 64 boards) was that the leading team won by 80+ imps.

The usual result is that the off-kilter actions make some spectacular gains, but lead to spectacular losses as well, and on balance the latter outweigh the former.

I remember playing on a team with Allan Graves, going into a 72 board final of (by Canadian standards) an important event. We had been in the fortunate position of having large leads in the quarter and semi-finals, and his advice throughout was that when playing with a large lead, try to play as if you were trailing by 1 imp.

1 imp won't get you swinging: it will get you grinding on every hand, on every trick, but staying within one's methods and style. That was some of the best advice I've ever received.

In addition, when what you know or suspect is that your opps are swinging, you still can't ever know when or how they would swing on any given board. Good opps choose their spots. I've played on a team far behind going into the final segment. I was on the bench watching Vugraph and witnessed our 'action pair' (we had disclosed to the opps that one of our pairs would likely be more swingy than the other) pick up 45 of the 58 imps we needed. They didn't swing on every board, but when they did, I would defy the opps at the other table to duplicate most of their actions even if a bell went off to tell them that our guys had taken an off-kilter action.

If you have a big lead, play as if you are 1 imp behind. Don't go conservative, don't go nuts: play your game. You will win 95% of the time.