[han]

Matchpoints, white against red.

Q
QJ8x
98xx
A76x

p - p - 1H - 1S
2H - p - p - Dbl
p - ??

[rogerclee]

I would pass, it's not like 2H showed a strong belief that 2H was making, it just shows 3 hearts and at least about 6 points. Opposite 51(43) I am sure that defending is right on average, which is partner's most likely shape. If partner is 6133 and didn't bid 2S then he has good minor cards and will lead a spade, so again I'm sure that defending is right on average. If partner is 5044 I'm sure that defending is probably wrong, but it's not a horribly losing position, so I'll take the chance.

[JLOGIC]

Obv pass

[gszes]

cant pass too risky--there are far to many ways
my hand can be limited to 2 tricks on defense
and that requires 4 tricks from partner to set them.
P did not x to begin with they overcalled and made a
balancing TOX. Hard to imagine 4 tricks from p with
this bidding.

If my partnershipe plays 2n here to show the minors
(my preference) I will bid that. If not I will
gamble on 3c hoping the opps take the push to 3h.

[han]

Partner has something like K10xxx x AK10 Q10xx. Almost the entire field is in 3C making so if you beat 2HX you get a true top and if not you get a true zero. At the table where I was watching 2HX was made after suboptimal defense.

[JLOGIC]

han, on 2012-April-22, 06:06, said:

Partner has something like K10xxx x AK10 Q10xx. Almost the entire field is in 3C making so if you beat 2HX you get a true top and if not you get a true zero. At the table where I was watching 2HX was made after suboptimal defense.

life in the fast lane

[nigel_k]

I have never played in a field where everyone would be in clubs making the same number of tricks on this kind of hand, though maybe such events exist. Someone who is in contention to win an event should expect their matchpoints for playing 3♣ would be well over 50%.

[han]

With an argument like that you can just stay at home and not play at all.

[cherdano]

nigel_k, on 2012-April-22, 14:35, said:

I have never played in a field where everyone would be in clubs making the same number of tricks on this kind of hand, though maybe such events exist. Someone who is in contention to win an event should expect their matchpoints for playing 3♣ would be well over 50%.

Well, of course I would play better than the field in 3♣, and expect to score 65%. But of course I would also find the correct defense against 2♥X, for 95%.

More seriously, I don't think this is the right way to think about this problem. It is not clear at all where the field will be - maybe RHO had a borderline 2H raise and the field is playing 1N or 2♣. If the field is weak, many won't find partner's obvious reopening double and will be defending 2♥ undoubled. Even if the field reopens, many in our position may actually pass; if 2♥X is just down one, then good luck scoring better than 50% in 3♣.

[gnasher]

Part of the right way to think about this problem is to ask yourself "What am I going to bid?" If you bid 2NT, you risk playing a horrible 3♣ opposite a 6133.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2012-April-25, 02:44, said:

Part of the right way to think about this problem is to ask yourself "What am I going to bid?" If you bid 2NT, you risk playing a horrible 3♣ opposite a 6133.

Would you really reopen with DBL holding 6♠133?
Of course you would if the majors were reversed, you bidding ♥s and they have a ♠ fit, but here?
I am not sure what the right way to think about this problem is.
All depends on your agreements and your partner's tendencies. Does he show a good hand?
Since I like my partner to contend such contracts in the pass-out seat, I probably bid 2NT.
Maybe they take the push and will bid 3♥. In my experience they often do.

Rainer Herrmann

[the hog]

I would bid 2NT scrambling. There are too many hands where 2HX will make.

[dake50]

What kind of drivel would partner reopen with?
Do I have to guard against his error?
He made a suggestion we have stuff.
He asked "What do I think?" I think defend!
Just as many other situations use your best judgment.
Can't bat 1000%

[S2000magic]

dake50, on 2012-April-25, 08:02, said:

Can't bat 1000%

Or even 100%.



I'd pass, expecting partner to be stronger than the OP's. If that's what partner has, then I'd expect tight defense.

[benlessard]

I really try to avoid doubling with voids, so for me its an easy pass.

[inquiry]

benlessard, on 2012-April-25, 09:31, said:

I really try to avoid doubling with voids, so for me its an easy pass.

This. +1

[Phil]

Pass. I think this is a better problem at IMPs.

[JLOGIC]

Phil, on 2012-April-25, 10:05, said:

Pass. I think this is a better problem at IMPs.

Really? I would never consider passing at imps. You go from high risk (zero) to high reward (top!) at MP. You go from high risk (doubled partscore making) to low reward at imps. Well, I guess you might beat them 2 or beat them when a partscore would fail, but your main upside of nipping them a trick when you can make a partscore is no longer very beneficial when playing imps. Definitely seems like a better problem at MP.

[Phil]

JLOGIC, on 2012-April-25, 11:16, said:

Really? I would never consider passing at imps. You go from high risk (zero) to high reward (top!) at MP. You go from high risk (doubled partscore making) to low reward at imps. Well, I guess you might beat them 2 or beat them when a partscore would fail, but your main upside of nipping them a trick when you can make a partscore is no longer very beneficial when playing imps. Definitely seems like a better problem at MP.

You never said what you'd bid at IMPs. 2N scrambling I guess?

I started to write a long response, but a lot of my thought process boils down to this question:

"Will partner reopen with the same hands at IMPs as he will at MPs, or can we expect something better"?

[nigel_k]

cherdano, on 2012-April-24, 20:09, said:

Well, of course I would play better than the field in 3♣, and expect to score 65%. But of course I would also find the correct defense against 2♥X, for 95%.

More seriously, I don't think this is the right way to think about this problem. It is not clear at all where the field will be - maybe RHO had a borderline 2H raise and the field is playing 1N or 2♣. If the field is weak, many won't find partner's obvious reopening double and will be defending 2♥ undoubled. Even if the field reopens, many in our position may actually pass; if 2♥X is just down one, then good luck scoring better than 50% in 3♣.

The problem is about comparing your expected score from defending 2♥X with your expected score from playing 3♣. Trying to figure out what we expect for playing 3♣ is obviously a big part of that. If the suggestion is that, because this is hard to figure out and our estimate might be wrong, we should just assume that playing 3♣ will be worth 50%, then I don't think *that* is the right way to think about this problem, or any problem.