[m1cha]

The bidding goes p - p - 1♠, and here's your hand:

♠ 1095
♥ AK3
♦ 52
♣ KQ832

all red, playing MPs. What will you do?

I had this hand in a recent tournament. Usually when I disagree with my partner on the bidding we find a solution or at least agree on the decision being borderline, but not in this case. So we are now seeking external help.

Actually, rather than hearing your system response I would prefer to hear what you would like you system response to be (if that makes a difference).

If vulnerability, scoring, or the seat influence your decision, please let me know.

[Bbradley62]

m1cha, on 2015-February-10, 22:04, said:

♣ KD832

What card is between K and 8?

[mike777]

pass no matter what the D card is.

I have a flat balanced hand, I have no long 6 card minor or long h suit, pard is a passed hand, I have 3 spades.

[m1cha]

Bbradley62, on 2015-February-10, 22:09, said:

What card is between K and 8?

The queen, sorry. Will edit.

[akwoo]

I'll consider passing red at IMPs, particularly if I'm 3rd seat (where partner has passed but LHO hasn't), but not otherwise.

I find that if I pass in these situations, it tends to go 2♠-P-P (or 1N-P-2♠) back to me, and I have to make the same decision one level higher. No thanks; at MPs, I'd rather have partner's input as to whether 3♣ is -1 or -2.

[Mbodell]

At MP, with the D=Q, I think 2♣ will work out best and that is the bid I make. I will not be shocked if you end up -800 or -1100 on a bad day, but the more likely bad scenario I worry about is -200 on an all pass or partner raise to 3♣. Still, on balance, I think the involvement and possible lead direct is worth it (and agree 100% with akwoo that otherwise I dread the auction coming back to me at 2♠ with me having passed - a partner with xx Qx Axxxx Jxxx could easily be passing through out if we don't act). At IMPs, I think it is a lot closer, and I pass this hand (but would maybe be tempted with KQT82 as a suit? Don't know, might still hold out for 2=3=3=5 instead of 3=3=2=5).

[mike777]

will pass if 2s comes back to me. I do not dread passing 2s

agree I may very well miss the 9 card club fit in the given example, though given MP and given insane MP bidding pard may or may not bid with your example over 2s given he knows I pass.

many ways to get to 1100 on this one.


fwiw I do strongly agree with the principle bid early and fast and then shut up but too much for me on this example hand.

[akwoo]

Even if partner has xx Qxx Axxxx Jxx you would usually rather be in 3♣ (for -100) than have them play 2♠ (for -110). Those 10 points is probably 40% of a board in a decent large field.

[mike777]

fair point I guess no -200 in your example at MP

in any event I agree that defending 2s sucks at MP perhaps why I don't win.

OTOH if somehow the math or bridge experts can teach me, us, when we should defend at 2s....now that is a bridge article I will read.

In any event this post brings into the discussion of prebalance by partner at MP and aggressive vs 2s and aggressive doubles at the 3 level at MP?

[MrAce]

I pass.

I pass almost all 5332 hands that requires an overcall at 2 level and in range of 10-14 (with some exceptions)

[mikeh]

This is a clear pass. Our clubs are too short and too weak for a minimum value overcall.

2♣ is not as attractive an overcall over 1♠ than it is over either red suit (especially diamonds). It isn't preemptive enough to be worth a stretch

Those 3 spades are a HUGE reason to not bid here. Yes, if partner is short in spades, we'll be ok, so long as he has club length, but why should it be partner who is short, rather than LHO?

The vulnerability is bad for over-competing at mps. Not that imps is any better......doubling off 2m is a low-risk way to get rich, since making 2 doubled is only 180.

As a general rule, if one is thinking of an aggressive action, take a look at one's holding in the suit bid on one's right....unless the opps have announced a fit, be very, very scared of xxx holdings.

[helene_t]

It is one of those hands where I know that all non-exentric experts pass but I feel strongly that bidding would work in the circles where I play. The thing is, we will inevitable push them to 3♠ regardless of whether partner's raise to 3♣ is beyond par or not.

[ggwhiz]

helene_t, on 2015-February-11, 10:33, said:

It is one of those hands where I know that all non-exentric experts pass but I feel strongly that bidding would work in the circles where I play. The thing is, we will inevitable push them to 3♠ regardless of whether partner's raise to 3♣ is beyond par or not.

Yes. Never in a million years at imps but at mp's I would expect passing to average 40% at best in most fields.

[m1cha]

m1cha, on 2015-February-10, 22:04, said:

The bidding goes p - p - 1♠, and here's your hand:

♠ 1095
♥ AK3
♦ 52
♣ KQ832

Thanks to all who have replied so far.

To those who said the hand is too balanced to bid: I think I get your point and I don't disagree. Yet, to elaborate the situation a little further, I believe most of us would bid (double) on balanced hands such as one or more of those below, wouldn't we?

[a] ♠T95 ♥AK3 ♦Q52 ♣K832
[b] ♠T95 ♥AQ83 ♦K52 ♣K32
[c] ♠52 ♥AK3 ♦QT95 ♣K832
[d] ♠52 ♥AQ83 ♦KT95 ♣K32

At the table I thought: 'If I don't bid now, how can I convince my partner later that I have a strong hand?' Obviously I failed to realize that showing my points would have no point at that time since partner had previously passed and full game was very unlikely.

Mike, I particularly like your comment on the three spades. Indeed that got an issue in later bidding and play.

I am going to post the full hand in a couple of hours.

[mikeh]

m1cha, on 2015-February-11, 13:26, said:

Thanks to all who have replied so far.

To those who said the hand is too balanced to bid: I think I get your point and I don't disagree. Yet, to elaborate the situation a little further, I believe most of us would bid (double) on balanced hands such as one or more of those below, wouldn't we?

[a] ♠T95 ♥AK3 ♦Q52 ♣K832
[b] ♠T95 ♥AQ83 ♦K52 ♣K32
[c] ♠52 ♥AK3 ♦QT95 ♣K832
[d] ♠52 ♥AQ83 ♦KT95 ♣K32

I would pass a and b and would double with d all day long, but c is very close, and I probably would pass unless white, since partner will strain to bid hearts when we belong in a minor.

Quote

At the table I thought: 'If I don't bid now, how can I convince my partner later that I have a strong hand?'

This isn't a strong hand. I know that a lot of players feel that if they hold what would be an opening bid then they have a strong hand and a duty to get into the auction. That is understandable, but very wrong. There is a very real difference in the value of a hand if no one has yet bid, if partner has bid, or if the opps have bid.

This hand is a minimum standard opening bid...not maybe the worst hand one would open, depending on style, but surely close, given that our suit is a minor, rather than a major. We know the opening lead will be a spade 9 times out of ten, and we also know that on a spade lead, especially if LHO holds shortness, this is likely to play very poorly. This hand is not a strong hand, and it is important to understand why.

In addition, your concern about partner (let's assume partner was unpassed) is somewhat circular. If partner knows that you will evaluate as I, and the other passers, have suggested, then your pass doesn't deny these sorts of values. Obviously, it doesn't promise them . But if you can make a game, then the odds are that either partner can bid at his turn or you may be able to balance....and, if not, it is important to accept that there are some hands on which you will get a bad result by doing the right thing. The object is to get good results on average. Bidding here will get some good and some bad results, as will passing. My experience, and I have had a lot of bad results, is that bidding here will on balance work out worse than passing.....that isn't at all the same as claiming that bidding will invariably fare poorly or that passing will fare well.

Quote

Mike, I particularly like your comment on the three spades. Indeed that got an issue in later bidding and play.

I am going to post the full hand in a couple of hours.

[m1cha]

Well then, here's the full board:

---

West lead ♠A and ♠Q, then ♦9. Unfortunately I misplayed the hand going down 2 for a shared bottom score. Going down just 1 undoubled would have been pretty good at MPs because 2♠ and 2♥ make, scoring 110 for EW, though better opponents might have got us doubled anyway. 2♦ is also down 1.

Thanks again to all who participated. I learnt much today.

[masonbarge]

m1cha, on 2015-February-11, 21:35, said:

Well then, here's the full board:

---

West lead ♠A and ♠Q, then ♦9. Unfortunately I misplayed the hand going down 2 for a shared bottom score. Going down just 1 undoubled would have been pretty good at MPs because 2♠ and 2♥ make, scoring 110 for EW, though better opponents might have got us doubled anyway. 2♦ is also down 1.

Thanks again to all who participated. I learnt much today.

I'm bidding 2C also - and yes it's tight because of the vul. - but it's admittedly a bit late since I've seen the hand. At MPs you have to bid. If you pass and West raises to 2S on three spades and a prayer, you're finished. -100 vs. -110 is nothing at IMPs but could be 70% vs. 30% at MPs. Or you could be making 3C.

You can't be dropping tricks in play though

[akwoo]

Here's what I want to know, if I'm going to be resulting:

Was -110 closer in MPs to -200 or closer to -100?

[Mbodell]

As can happen, the big matchpoint risk, in practice rather than in theory, was -200 for undoubled down 2.

You lost the board for bidding 2♣ because E should reopen with a X and W can then pass that (for a top) or correct to 2M (for an avg+) depending on how brave they are. You get an avg- at best, possibly a bottom.

Your opponents gave you the board where they failed to double/compete correctly. You get a top.

You gave the board back when you went down 2, instead of down 1. You get a bottom.

Some of this is knowing your opponents (thinking positively on bidding) or picking up bad habits from playing against bad players (thinking negatively on bidding).

[m1cha]

akwoo, on 2015-February-11, 23:55, said:

Here's what I want to know, if I'm going to be resulting:

Was -110 closer in MPs to -200 or closer to -100?

There's no -120 or -140. 2NT by EW should go down. This is the score table (played at our local club):

+100 x2
-110 x6
-200 x3

In two cases EW went down in 2♠ and 3♠. Noone went down -1 in 2♣ for -100, but someone went down -2 in 3♦.