[Walddk]

Scoring: MP

---

Hecht Cup, Copenhagen, Denmark. Matchpoints, strong field.

You open 1♥ first in hand, LHO overcalls 1♠, and your partner bids 2♣. Pass by RHO and you support to 3♣. Partner hesitates (no dispute) for about 30 seconds before bidding 3NT.

Can you bid 4♥ now? Are you allowed to bid at all? Say you bid 4♥ and get 5♣ from partner. Will they allow you to raise to 6♣? In other words:

1. Is 4♥ obvious?
2. If yes, is 6♣ obvious because it's pairs?

Roland

[PMetsch]

1.Not to me. I think the hand is too good for 3♣ though 4♣ is not good at MP. After 3NT by partner I might consider 4♣ (as a slam try). It is not clear, so you must pass I guess.

[cherdano]

I don't think the UI suggests trying for slam: partner may have been thinking of passing 3♣, or trying for another game. It does suggest 4♥ however, as it is a better contract opposite a weak partner, and can still lead to slam if partner is strong.
However, as Justin says, playing 3NT cannot be right. If it were, partner would have bid NT in the first round.

Arend

[Walddk]

cherdano, on Sep 26 2005, 10:16 PM, said:

However, as Justin says, playing 3NT cannot be right. If it were, partner would have bid NT in the first round.

Arend

I hoped someone would bring that up. Why didn't he just bid 3NT over 1♠?

Roland

[mike777]

Walddk, on Sep 26 2005, 03:20 PM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 26 2005, 10:16 PM, said:

However, as Justin says, playing 3NT cannot be right. If it were, partner would have bid NT in the first round.

Arend

I hoped someone would bring that up. Why didn't he just bid 3NT over 1♠?

Roland

Can partner be:

K96=x=KJx=KQJxxx on this auction?

It seems bidding on over 3nt is now forced with the above hand so 4D ace ask for C now over 3nt for me.

[luis]

Roland
This two questions are very difficult.
I think pass is a logical alternative to 4♥. I don't think it is a good bid but I think it is a logical alternative.
After 4♥ and 5♣ again I think pass is a logical alternative to 5♣ and the 6♣ bid may have been influenced by the hesitation before 3NT.
I'm not absolutely sure just saying what I think.

[pclayton]

I'd allow the call over 3N too.

But I think I like a 3♠ splinter instead of 3♣. Then I'd have less problem leaving in 3N. I know 4♥ is becoming tougher to reach, but if pard has a club suit, likely double spade stopper AND can't support hearts over 3♠ I'm not worried about missing out 6-2 fit.

[mikeh]

Walddk, on Sep 26 2005, 03:20 PM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 26 2005, 10:16 PM, said:

However, as Justin says, playing 3NT cannot be right. If it were, partner would have bid NT in the first round.

Arend

I hoped someone would bring that up. Why didn't he just bid 3NT over 1♠?

Roland

I'm not overly concerned about why he did not bid 3N immediately: I suspect it was because that would not have described his hand

I don't care what his particular problem was over 3♣: I cannot imagine passing 3N at imps: I think it would be a poor bid at mps, altho I can understand the attraction of the overtrick.

It is difficult to construct hands on which 4♥ or 5♣ are worse than 3N, and easy to construct hands on which either is better (maybe the opps can run the ♦ suit) or 6♣ is reasonable.

4♣ is one possibility, but mis-describes the hand: especially that ♥ suit.

4♥ is an entirely descriptive bid.

BTW, for me 3♣ is forcing, and acceptable.

But can south raise to 6♣ over 5♣?

I think so: I would not, because I think that I have desribed my hand quite well: since 3♣ was forcing, and I have shown a decent 6-4, I have no reason to bid.

Having said that, 6♣ is permissible, because the hesitation did not logically indicate extras: the hesitation could equally suggest that partner was mulling over a more conservative call, and so 6♣ has no play. The pull of 4♥ to 5♣ does not change that: we could easily be off the ♦ suit or two aces.

[Walddk]

mikeh, on Sep 26 2005, 11:26 PM, said:

I don't care what his particular problem was over 3♣: I cannot imagine passing 3N at imps.

Maybe not Mike, but this is MP, not IMPs. Look again.

Roland

[mikeh]

Walddk, on Sep 26 2005, 04:46 PM, said:

mikeh, on Sep 26 2005, 11:26 PM, said:

I don't care what his particular problem was over 3♣: I cannot imagine passing 3N at imps.

Maybe not Mike, but this is MP, not IMPs. Look again.

Roland

Details

Okay, now I change my mind. Pass is a logical alternative: +630 is going to be a good score:)

Yes, there was presumably a reason for 2♣, not 3N. But would you bid 3N with KQx x Kxx KQJxxx?

What else would you bid over 3♣ with this hand?

So now I believe that passing is a logical alternative due to the form of scoring.

However, pulling 3N to 4♥ and then bidding 6♣ strikes me as inconsistent at mps. We pulled 3N because we were worried that it was a bad contract. Partner, having heard that we were 6=4 in the round suits, did not bid 4N, which suggests that we were right to pull. So 5♣ rates to be ok, compared to 3N... maybe precisely because of ♦issues:

KQx x Qx KQxxxxx

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Sep 26 2005, 05:09 PM, said:

MP is not an excuse for bad bridge Maybe it is and thats why I suck at MP

I always claim that it is, and that is why I rarely win

Of course, that excuse doesn't help much when it is pointed out that I rarely win at imps either

[han]

Anybody else who would have bid 3S over 2C?

[mike777]

Hannie, on Sep 26 2005, 06:32 PM, said:

Anybody else who would have bid 3S over 2C?

Gee you and Justin wanting to make slam try on this hand after simple 2clubs seems a bit much. I feel more comfortable after partner accepts my game try. Then make slam try?

[mike777]

Sure but can we not make slam try after partner shows a game invite accept hand?

[awm]

I don't think you can bid on in the situation given.

Many people have argued that 3♣ is an under-bid. I agree with this point. However, after making a non-forcing call at the previous round I do not think the argument that "this hand is too strong to pass 3NT" is valid. To give a comparable situation, suppose I hold:

Axxx
x
AKxx
xxxx

Partner opens 1♠, and I bid 3♦ showing a 4-card limit-raise of spades. Partner now hesitates for a minute, and then bids 3♠. Now, obviously the hand above is worth a game force opposite a 1♠ opening. But now that I have chosen to make only a limit raise, I cannot re-evaluate the hand to a game force and bid 4♠ when partner's hesitation clearly indicates that this action is a favorite to succeed!

It's hard to imagine a situation at matchpoints where passing 3NT is not a logical alternative. Not the best choice, perhaps, but not logical? Considering the 3♣ call, which is non-forcing as far as I know in standard methods, we can't make a slam try over 3NT. Now perhaps 4♥ might be a better game than 3NT, but it doesn't have to be. Give partner a hand like:

AQx
x
QJx
KQxxxx

I'd bid this hand much the way partner did (well okay, without the hesitation). A direct 3NT call seems silly since there could easily be slam in clubs. But after the non-forcing 3♣ call, looking for slam seems optimistic and partner should try 3NT. There are a pretty straightforward ten tricks in notrump if the ♠K is onside, as it is likely to be. If diamonds are lead there is a good chance at eleven tricks. On the other hand, 4♥ requires some luck to even make, and if partner corrects to 5♣ (as is likely) then eleven tricks is probably the limit. There are many hands similar to this where 3NT will score better than any suit contract at matchpoints.

The break in tempo doesn't necessarily indicate whether partner has a bad hand (gambling on 3NT when he could pass), a good hand (settling for 3NT when slam may be possible), or a hand with doubts about 3NT (shakey spade stop, or a partial heart fit or something). However, any of these would tend to suggest that 4♥ might be more successful than passing, and I believe passing has to be a logical alternative.

I agree with all those who would've bid 3♠ (splinter) at the second turn. But having failed to do so, we can't now try to "make up lost ground" when partner's break in tempo implies that we are likely to succeed by doing so.

[awm]

Jlall, on Sep 26 2005, 08:58 PM, said:

How do we know 3C is a NF? Mike has said he plays 3C as forcing, I'm sure others play this. More importantly, pulling to 4H isn't a slam try. It says I want to play this in a suit contract. For every 1 example that 3N is best, there are 10 where 4H (or 5C) is better. I don't thinkt he fact that this 1 hand exists makes passing an LA.

A fine argument that bidding 4♥ is a logical alternative, but not really enough to argue that passing is not.

In fact, I question your ten to one ratio here. Keep in mind that after you bid 4♥ it may be difficult to play the hand in notrump. If partner has singleton heart, you will almost never have good play for 4♥. On a large number of these hands you would have made 3NT. While 5♣ will often make, it will not generally score better than 3NT when both are making (one overtrick in notrump and even making six in clubs won't outscore it).

How likely is partner to hold a singleton heart? Keep in mind that there was no spade raise on your right. Partner probably has a fair number of spades along with five or more clubs. I don't think it's unlikely that partner has singleton heart at all. Even if diamonds are wide open, a spade lead is not too unlikely on the bidding!

While I regret the initial 3♣ call, I think passing 3NT is the right matchpoint decision on the auction given. I can accept that you disagree with my decision on this auction, but claiming that a pass of partner's 3NT at matchpoints is not a logical alternative seems unrealistic to me.