[daveharty]

---

Matchpoints, nobody vulnerable. Partner can be trusted to reopen with a double on any excuse. Are you out for blood, or is this hand too slammish?

[BunnyGo]

I was going to say that I was "too slammish" but then I started thinking. I need partner to have quite a few controls for slam to have a chance. I'm off 3 aces, and the K of spades. Plus, I need a source of tricks. Partner probably has an unbalanced hand, which will be a good source, but it's not certain that we have the controls or the tricks. So I pass. If partner doesn't double with some unbalanced hand and instead bids again, then I'm happy to make a slam try.

[Gerben42]

I bid 3♥. At this level, partner might still pass some minimum hands with doubleton ♦ and he cannot be blamed. The downside of 3♦ passed out is just too great.

[pooltuna]

IMO bidding with this hand is not a LA

[daveharty]

pooltuna, on 2011-June-23, 13:01, said:

IMO bidding with this hand is not a LA

Could you elaborate? Is this because you expect +800 to be a good score vs. games, or because you expect to go +1100 often enough to compensate for missing slam? I think I agree that it's much less of a problem at IMPs, but at MP it seemed pretty close to the borderline to me. Also there is Gerben's point about partner occasionally passing out 3D.

[pooltuna]

daveharty, on 2011-June-23, 13:11, said:

Could you elaborate? Is this because you expect +800 to be a good score vs. games, or because you expect to go +1100 often enough to compensate for missing slam? I think I agree that it's much less of a problem at IMPs, but at MP it seemed pretty close to the borderline to me. Also there is Gerben's point about partner occasionally passing out 3D.

One of the considerations for opening should be will you protect tending not to open hands or preempt if that is an option hands where you won't. It also really pisses partner off when you don't so that is a consideration as well. If partner can't protect you are not missing slam. Not that slam is per se any great shakes anyway. I expect +500, +800, +1100 to be good scores on average. I leave guaranteeing of good scores to Lloyd's of London.

[semeai]

Some Analysis:

Let's give opener a 7 card suit. Then partner has 2 diamonds roughly 1/3 the time. I'm not sure, but at least 1/2 the time he'll be 11-13ish minimum I guess. Does partner reopen with a 4-3-2-4 12 count? Let's say no. Then we're getting a bottom 1/6 the time if we pass.

So partner reopens maybe 5/6 the time. Thus if when we're certain he'll reopen we think pass does better at least 3/5 of the time, then we should pass.

If RHO has a 6 card suit, then partner has 3 diamonds somewhat less than 1/4 the time and 2 diamonds somewhat more than 1/4 the time. Maybe 1/4 to 3/8 the time he passes out the double. That means partner reopens 5/8 to 3/4 the time. So we need to think penalty double is better than bidding 2/3 to 4/5 the time.

(We did assume partner never doubles on 4-3-2-4 12 counts, though. Probably he does some of the time.)

Both of these seem to point to pass. We're just about always going to get more than our game. Slam doesn't seem sufficiently likely, and in the case where RHO has a 6 card suit, we're fairly likely to beat our slam in 3♦x if slam is on.

[whereagles]

Looking at my hand and the bidding, it looks like pard has a very minimum opener with 54 blacks.

Opposite that hand, slam is a long way off and 3♦ dbled is gonna be ugly. Since pard is expected to dbl even if he has a crappy hand, I'd pass. If I'm not so sure, I'd bid 3♥ (and bid 3NT over pard's 3♠).

[the hog]

whereagles, on 2011-June-23, 13:45, said:

Looking at my hand and the bidding, it looks like pard has a very minimum opener with 54 blacks.

Opposite that hand, slam is a long way off and 3♦ dbled is gonna be ugly. Since pard is expected to dbl even if he has a crappy hand, I'd pass. If I'm not so sure, I'd bid 3♥ (and bid 3NT over pard's 3♠).

Is he "....expected to dbl even if he has a crappy hand"? I certainly do not think so. I am bidding 3H.

[nigel_k]

I think pass is the percentage action even if partner might not reopen with a minimum. We may be already behind other tables since it is now too risky to make a slam try. Having said that, most matchpoints is played in quite bad fields where you can win by just playing normal bridge and avoiding bottoms so I usually prefer to just do that.

[Cyberyeti]

Pass is the clear cut percentage action. If I trust my opps, partner can't have 3 diamonds, therefore he will reopen unless he's precisely 4225 minimum. We have previous for doubling on 10 counts routinely with a singleton diamond, so I don't expect partner to pass often.

The slam may not be very good, if diamonds are 1174 round the table, partner better have the J♥.

[matmat]

3♥ please.

[mtvesuvius]

Clear 3♥, even at MPs. I'm not going to try to get all the matchpoints in the auction here, and I don't think that 3♦ will be bloody enough when partner does reopen.

When partner isn't able to reopen, which at least for anyone within the realm of sanity will happen reasonably often, we will be getting a very bad board. Even when partner is 4414, he may pass if he has stiff Q or J. When partner has a doubleton and a fairly minimum hand, they will almost certainly be passing. There isn't a guarantee that we are beating 3♦X enough anyway.

I don't expect to make a slam too often with this hand, but I do expect that passing 3♦ is a long-term loser.

PS. If you are doubling on any random 4324 12 count, you will lose matchpoints on probably around 85% of hands.

[whereagles]

the hog, on 2011-June-23, 14:14, said:

Is he "....expected to dbl even if he has a crappy hand"?

Well, that's what we were told At least that's how I interpreted "Partner can be trusted to reopen with a double on any excuse".

[Free]

Depending on the current standings, you might want to go for top/bottom, or wait for a better opportunity. Overall I would bid 3♥ most of the time.

Why should I take the risk of getting +150 or +200? Partner will probably be minimum with short ♦. He can be balanced in which case he'll pass. He can have long ♣ in which case he'll pass as well. Pass is just too risky imo, I prefer a sure +460 over "hopefully" +500 or +800. Pass is playing top or bottom, bidding 3♥ is playing for a good or bad average.

[Cyberyeti]

Free, on 2011-June-24, 02:05, said:

Depending on the current standings, you might want to go for top/bottom, or wait for a better opportunity. Overall I would bid 3♥ most of the time.

Why should I take the risk of getting +150 or +200? Partner will probably be minimum with short ♦. He can be balanced in which case he'll pass. He can have long ♣ in which case he'll pass as well. Pass is just too risky imo, I prefer a sure +460 over "hopefully" +500 or +800. Pass is playing top or bottom, bidding 3♥ is playing for a good or bad average.

An aside, this is a hand where playing short club strong no trump bites you slightly. Weak no trumpers and 4M people have a much higher chance of partner reopening, so it's a much easier pass.

Also some of the discussion earlier, if I decided this was an opening bid, if I have 0-1 diamonds I MUST reopen or partner won't trust me in much more obvious trap pass situations.

[daveharty]

whereagles, on 2011-June-24, 00:33, said:

Well, that's what we were told At least that's how I interpreted "Partner can be trusted to reopen with a double on any excuse".

By "any excuse" I mean "any hand with diamond shortness", even if the rest of his shape is awkward.

[mike gill]

Partner's tendencies notwithstanding, I'm not willing to put the whole board on his reopening. Sometimes they've preempted on only 6 (gasp!) and then partner is much more likely to have 2 and a min, or 2 and some extras but an awkward shape. Also, you're by no means guaranteed to get 500:

---

Yes, I know this is somewhat contrived with all partner's values in our suits and them having the key spots in spades, but I didn't even have to give East a void or a 4-card side suit, nor dummy 2 trumps and a ruffing value.

[semeai]

If your answer on matchpoint questions is going to be that you don't like tops and bottoms, you're really just assuming that either you're better than the field or you're already having a good game.

The latter is similar to assuming you're already having a poor game: they're both reasons to take anti-expected-value actions (one on boards where the top/bottom gives the best expected value by a modest amount, the other where the middle-of-the-road route gives the best expected value by a modest amount).

The former is a fine assumption for many in some games and for some in many games, and I'm very happy to read that you think that would often influence your choice on this hand. However, a player's threshold for avoiding swingy actions because he/she expects to regain value later in the hand is going to vary from player to player and from event to event.

If you're going to give the "I like to avoid swings" answer, it'd be nice if you could also state your opinion for an event composed of players all of your standard, or <sarcasmForMost> if there aren't enough players of your standard to possibly fill out such an event, it'd be nice if you could give your answer at BAM too. </sarcasmForMost> Perhaps you already have given that answer by stating "I like to avoid swings" though, in which case, carry on!

[matmat]

semeai, on 2011-June-24, 09:32, said:

If your answer on matchpoint questions is going to be that you don't like tops and bottoms, you're really just assuming that either you're better than the field or you're already having a good game.

I don't see any context in the OP about what sort of game is going on. I don't see any comments about the strength of the field relative to the partnership. Both are valid concerns when choosing your strategy for an event, but are not relevant here.

We're simply asked to pick an action that we think will maximize the frequency of a good score, not maximize an action that will maximize the chance of our score being the opposite to that of the field.