[Bbradley62]

---

matchpoints

[billw55]

Bbradley62, on 2010-October-21, 09:53, said:

---

matchpoints

5♠. No room left to look for slam. It might not be making anyway.

[mfa1010]

6♠. Partner is in principle showing 10+ and I doubt that he has much wastage in clubs the way the opponents are bidding vul vs not. We are favourites to have a slam on here. 6♣ on the way may lead to a grand, but I don't think we have the values for it and I don't want to scream for a heart lead.

[pooltuna]

5♠ for me altho I do have sympathy for a 6♠ call. I am restrained by playing with too many pickups who assume everyone uses NFB.

[Fluffy]

6♠, worried about third round of diamonds, I think we are closer to 6♣ than 5♠

[skjaeran]

6 for me too. Agree with Fluffy's evaluation.

[Siegmund]

Just 5 here. There are some hands where 6 will make, but I don't think it's close to 50%.

[billw55]

Did all the 6♠ bidders notice that matchpoints was specified? I would be much more tempted to try 6♠ at IMPs.

[wyman]

billw55, on 2010-October-21, 14:29, said:

Did all the 6♠ bidders notice that matchpoints was specified? I would be much more tempted to try 6♠ at IMPs.

+1

I think it's awfully close at MPs in a good field and auto-5S at a local club (where I expect 25-50% of the field to miss a cold slam without interference, unless it's a particularly good club). At the very least, I'm pretty confident we're going + in 5S, so I'll hopefully avoid the zero and settle for an Av- if that's what +4/680 is.

[Bbradley62]

Thank you all for the feedback. I'm content with the answer that it's a close call. The self-described expert sitting North (in an individual tournament, which I suppose I could have specified as part of the conditions of contest) called me an idiot for bidding 6♠. It got doubled and went down a few, since he held:

---

[wyman]

Bbradley62, on 2010-October-21, 15:34, said:

Thank you all for the feedback. I'm content with the answer that it's a close call. The self-described expert sitting North (in an individual tournament, which I suppose I could have specified as part of the conditions of contest) called me an idiot for bidding 6♠. It got doubled and went down a few, since he held:

---

You have discovered the problem with self-described experts.

[Phil]

I would bid 6♠. I'm more worried about missing 7 than making 6.

The actual 2♠ hand is a joke.

Also, I don not understand this IMPs vs Matchpoints philosophy on a hand like this. Don't they pay slam bonuses at MPs?

[bucky]

For pairs that play forcing pass in this sequence (I don't), you can pass then pull to 5♠.

[Free]

Phil, on 2010-October-21, 16:25, said:

I would bid 6♠. I'm more worried about missing 7 than making 6.

The actual 2♠ hand is a joke.

Also, I don not understand this IMPs vs Matchpoints philosophy on a hand like this. Don't they pay slam bonuses at MPs?

Agree with all of this

[billw55]

Phil, on 2010-October-21, 16:25, said:

Also, I don not understand this IMPs vs Matchpoints philosophy on a hand like this. Don't they pay slam bonuses at MPs?

Certainly they do. But on the pitiless matchpoint scoresheet, that slam bonus sometimes pays no more than a single overtrick does. But it always pays full value at IMPs. Or in reverse, failure to collect the bonus often doesn't cost as much as pairs - but always at IMPs. That's why I made the (possibly wrong) distinction.

Agree that the actual north hand is a farce.

[awm]

I like 5♠ here. While the actual north hand is ridiculous, add the spade ace and it's not so strange.

I've learned to be wary of opponents preempting like this... the inference that "partner doesn't have much wasted in clubs" has been incorrect way too many times for me to count. My 5♠ bid shows a good hand (I don't feel obligated to bid 5♠ on a weak notrump with four spades, for example) and this call plus the auction should mark me with short clubs. Partner can bid six himself if he has a decent hand with nothing in clubs and good controls.

[Fluffy]

awm, on 2010-October-22, 11:17, said:

I like 5♠ here. While the actual north hand is ridiculous, add the spade ace and it's not so strange.

Yeah but then they have to lead.

[mtvesuvius]

I will bid 5S -- Partner rates to have a bit of Club wastage, and my 3 low hearts are quite a concern (anyone up for a 5H bid? )

[bucky]

Bbradley62, on 2010-October-21, 15:34, said:

Thank you all for the feedback. I'm content with the answer that it's a close call. The self-described expert sitting North (in an individual tournament, which I suppose I could have specified as part of the conditions of contest) called me an idiot for bidding 6♠. It got doubled and went down a few, since he held:

---

Do not trust bidding or play from any of self-described experts without a star. The guideline says an expert is "someone who has enjoyed success in major national tournaments", and if his level fits the definition, don't you think he would have already earned a star status? If one cannot even be honest with his level, what else can be trusted?