[daveharty]

---

Matchpoints. Your call?

[billw55]

3♦

[aguahombre]

2♦

[gszes]

Missing 5d or 4s is no huge crime in mp so there is little need to jump here and
the mere fact p could not bid 2s greatly diminishes our chances for game.
Our main effort should be in making sure we compete to our most effective partscore
and the choices seem to be X (p please lead a spade and hope the opps dont have
anywhere to run and cant make 7 tricks) and my choice

2d

The 2d bid has an enormous % probability of being safe and getting our side to
our most makeable partscore. We even have a bit in reserve if we need to
compete at the 3 level.

[Cyberyeti]

I don't like 2♦ unless I'm going to bid 3♦ over partner's false preference to 2♠, and if I'm going to do that, I might as well have done it first time which is a very descriptive bid as with a number of hands where 3♦ is in the frame I can double 1N.

This is a hand that can make 5♦ opposite the right yarborough. I think it's odds on we have a decent diamond fit. Also 109♠ are huge cards, opposite any hand with 4 small diamonds we're going to make 3♦, and presuming diamonds behave, I fancy my chances of making 3♦ opposite most hands with xxx, or 3♠ opposite xx/xxx in our suits.

Double dummy, these contracts will often be defeatable, but in practice they're most often beaten by a club force, and opening leader will usually have the ace but not lead it.

[billw55]

I was thinking that game is very good if partner has just one card out of ♠KQ ♦A ♣A.

[Phil]

2♠ because its matchpoints, but I might want to think about it more.

[ggwhiz]

Double.

Not because I expect to play it here but because my next bid in ♠ or ♦ will show a serious hand. Partner may be able to squeek with the right nothing and if that squeek is 3♠ over say, further competition I'll raise.

lho couldn't bid a club suit with their nothing but might be coming in over the double.

[MrAce]

LOL

I was always confused about what MP meant. Looking at some replies here, now i know that it means "excuse for bidding jokes" ( i am messing with you Phil, i couldnt resist it bro )

We have 1 card less than a 2♣ opener, and we will simply bid 2 something ? Just in case pd has nothing and there is a special distribution out there that we may not make anything at 3 level ? You guys just introduced a totally new level to the conservatism imo.

[Statto]

X could show a decent profit whatever happens next...

[Phil]

Now I'm convinced 2♠ is right.

[JLOGIC]

Phil, on 2012-June-29, 20:33, said:

Now I'm convinced 2♠ is right.

Meh they overcalled 1N w/r opp a passed hand. I can see going low if we absolutely trust the 1N bid, so to me this answer definitely depends on the opps.

[Phil]

JLOGIC, on 2012-June-29, 20:49, said:

Meh they overcalled 1N w/r opp a passed hand. I can see going low if we absolutely trust the 1N bid, so to me this answer definitely depends on the opps.

Too true. I can see a string of clubs thats about to pass Stayman.

[perko90]

Wow, N & W are sharing ~6 HCPs. N would have run to 2♥ if holding 5+. So my ptr has 4+ (likely 5+) hearts. I don't want to dbl and have ptr take it out to one of my stiffs, 2♦ is wimpy, so it's gotta be 3♦ - tells the story.

[MrAce]

Phil, on 2012-June-29, 21:04, said:

Too true. I can see a string of clubs thats about to pass Stayman.

Or he can have a totally honest 1NT with 17 or even 18 hcp and you may still be cold for game. Once you start with 2 it is hard to convince pd that we can make game on a dime. Spade 9 and diamond 9 are HUGE cards imo. If we had our club king somewhere else we would have opened 2 clubs.

Pd can have Qx xxxx xxx xxxx and you wanna be in 4♠. I will not bullshit and tell you that we will neccesarilly find the game if he has this and we start by a jump, but he maybe looking at ♦ A or ♣ A or long diamonds in his hand. And if not your hand is such a good hand which seems to lose 4 tricks at most at 3 level.

I am looking at the hands we all regularly bid at 3 level and i am looking at this hand, and i am still having hard time to see the concern about 3 level with these cards we hold tbh.

I have a question to you. Do you believe ♣K is fully wasted value ? Because i don't believe it is as bad as a small club. It has zero contribution to the amount of tricks we will take directly, but the good thing about it is that opponents dont have it It is harder for LHO to start tapping you by leading from an AQxx suit compared to AKxx. It is a value in your hand not in theirs, which makes it harder for them to evaluate their own potential, which makes it harder for them to use it as entry during defense etc etc.. (assume NT bidder had KQxx KJxx Ax AJx and led ♦A and another ♦, without ♣K they would manage to take ♦ ruff or they would start by tapping you in 3♠, or assume NT bidder had Kxx KJxx Ax AQxx and started with A and small ♦ dummy holding stiff or doubleton spade Q, same thing without ♣ K you cant make 10 tricks eventhough K itself gives you no tricks)

At the top of all these, as you guys mentioned there are funny 1 NT overcalls too

[jdeegan]

I can't remember, offhand, all the details of "I Fought the Law", but one lesson was for sure - Don't bid a lot when you have short suit high cards. This hand has two. It's silly to assume LHO has psyched absent some strong outside evidence. So, the 2♦ low road seems best, imo.

[chasetb]

jdeegan, on 2012-June-30, 00:36, said:

I can't remember, offhand, all the details of "I Fought the Law", but one lesson was for sure - Don't bid a lot when you have short suit high cards. This hand has two. It's silly to assume LHO has psyched absent some strong outside evidence. So, the 2♦ low road seems best, imo.

Read a little bit more. There's two long suits, and a TON of honors and nice spot cards in said long suits. Partner might only have ♠Q and ♦T, and 4♠ is pretty much cold. I tend to be conservative, but you have to jump up and make some kind of noise here.

EDIT - I'm on dial-up at the moment, otherwise I know of a particularly hilarious Steve Martin clip I would put on here that fits well in this discussion.

[MrAce]

jdeegan, on 2012-June-30, 00:36, said:

I can't remember, offhand, all the details of "I Fought the Law", but one lesson was for sure - Don't bid a lot when you have short suit high cards. This hand has two. It's silly to assume LHO has psyched absent some strong outside evidence. So, the 2♦ low road seems best, imo.

I have nothing but respect to the opinions of those who remembers a quote from a book and tries to apply it to the hand he holds, and bids 2♦ by counting how many short honors he has and makes comments about "bidding a lot" instead of counting how many tricks his hand takes vs a dummy like xxx xxx xxx xxxx or xx xxxx xxx xxxx (the list goes on...)

I think you would have an easy 3♦ bid if we took out ♥A and ♣K from your hand

I ♥ this bar...i mean BBF !

[kayin801]

Are we really that afraid of not being able to make 3♦ or 3♠ after bidding 3♦? Thanks, LHO, for letting us make a descriptive call!

If both of those contracts fail, sucks for me! But I think one of those contracts making is the percentage play, while in NT they might take 7 tricks in the round suits.

[lalldonn]

I can't see bidding less than 3♦. 1453 yarb for me one time pard.