BBO Discussion Forums: Partner reopens, matchpoints - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Partner reopens, matchpoints

Poll: Partner reopens, matchpoints (29 member(s) have cast votes)

What's your call

  1. Pass (16 votes [55.17%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 55.17%

  2. 2S (1 votes [3.45%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.45%

  3. 2NT (12 votes [41.38%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 41.38%

  4. something else (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 User is offline   han 

  • Under bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,797
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Posted 2012-April-21, 06:38

Matchpoints, white against red.

Q
QJ8x
98xx
A76x

p - p - 1H - 1S
2H - p - p - Dbl
p - ??
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.

- hrothgar
0

#2 User is offline   rogerclee 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,214
  • Joined: 2007-December-16
  • Location:Pasadena, CA

Posted 2012-April-21, 12:20

I would pass, it's not like 2H showed a strong belief that 2H was making, it just shows 3 hearts and at least about 6 points. Opposite 51(43) I am sure that defending is right on average, which is partner's most likely shape. If partner is 6133 and didn't bid 2S then he has good minor cards and will lead a spade, so again I'm sure that defending is right on average. If partner is 5044 I'm sure that defending is probably wrong, but it's not a horribly losing position, so I'll take the chance.
0

#3 User is offline   JLOGIC 

  • 2011 Poster of The Year winner
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,002
  • Joined: 2010-July-08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-April-21, 12:26

Obv pass
0

#4 User is offline   gszes 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,660
  • Joined: 2011-February-12

Posted 2012-April-21, 20:31

cant pass too risky--there are far to many ways
my hand can be limited to 2 tricks on defense
and that requires 4 tricks from partner to set them.
P did not x to begin with they overcalled and made a
balancing TOX. Hard to imagine 4 tricks from p with
this bidding.

If my partnershipe plays 2n here to show the minors
(my preference) I will bid that. If not I will
gamble on 3c hoping the opps take the push to 3h.
0

#5 User is offline   han 

  • Under bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,797
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Posted 2012-April-22, 06:06

Partner has something like K10xxx x AK10 Q10xx. Almost the entire field is in 3C making so if you beat 2HX you get a true top and if not you get a true zero. At the table where I was watching 2HX was made after suboptimal defense.
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.

- hrothgar
0

#6 User is offline   JLOGIC 

  • 2011 Poster of The Year winner
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,002
  • Joined: 2010-July-08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-April-22, 11:22

View Posthan, on 2012-April-22, 06:06, said:

Partner has something like K10xxx x AK10 Q10xx. Almost the entire field is in 3C making so if you beat 2HX you get a true top and if not you get a true zero. At the table where I was watching 2HX was made after suboptimal defense.


life in the fast lane
0

#7 User is offline   nigel_k 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,207
  • Joined: 2009-April-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wellington, NZ

Posted 2012-April-22, 14:35

I have never played in a field where everyone would be in clubs making the same number of tricks on this kind of hand, though maybe such events exist. Someone who is in contention to win an event should expect their matchpoints for playing 3 would be well over 50%.
0

#8 User is offline   han 

  • Under bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,797
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Posted 2012-April-23, 03:35

With an argument like that you can just stay at home and not play at all.
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.

- hrothgar
0

#9 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,519
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-April-24, 20:09

View Postnigel_k, on 2012-April-22, 14:35, said:

I have never played in a field where everyone would be in clubs making the same number of tricks on this kind of hand, though maybe such events exist. Someone who is in contention to win an event should expect their matchpoints for playing 3 would be well over 50%.

Well, of course I would play better than the field in 3, and expect to score 65%. But of course I would also find the correct defense against 2X, for 95%.

More seriously, I don't think this is the right way to think about this problem. It is not clear at all where the field will be - maybe RHO had a borderline 2H raise and the field is playing 1N or 2. If the field is weak, many won't find partner's obvious reopening double and will be defending 2 undoubled. Even if the field reopens, many in our position may actually pass; if 2X is just down one, then good luck scoring better than 50% in 3.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#10 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2012-April-25, 02:44

Part of the right way to think about this problem is to ask yourself "What am I going to bid?" If you bid 2NT, you risk playing a horrible 3 opposite a 6133.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#11 User is offline   rhm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,092
  • Joined: 2005-June-27

Posted 2012-April-25, 03:08

View Postgnasher, on 2012-April-25, 02:44, said:

Part of the right way to think about this problem is to ask yourself "What am I going to bid?" If you bid 2NT, you risk playing a horrible 3 opposite a 6133.

Would you really reopen with DBL holding 6133?
Of course you would if the majors were reversed, you bidding s and they have a fit, but here?
I am not sure what the right way to think about this problem is.
All depends on your agreements and your partner's tendencies. Does he show a good hand?
Since I like my partner to contend such contracts in the pass-out seat, I probably bid 2NT.
Maybe they take the push and will bid 3. In my experience they often do.

Rainer Herrmann
0

#12 User is offline   the hog 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,728
  • Joined: 2003-March-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Laos
  • Interests:Wagner and Bridge

Posted 2012-April-25, 03:48

I would bid 2NT scrambling. There are too many hands where 2HX will make.
"The King of Hearts a broadsword bears, the Queen of Hearts a rose." W. H. Auden.
0

#13 User is offline   dake50 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,211
  • Joined: 2006-April-22

Posted 2012-April-25, 08:02

What kind of drivel would partner reopen with?
Do I have to guard against his error?
He made a suggestion we have stuff.
He asked "What do I think?" I think defend!
Just as many other situations use your best judgment.
Can't bat 1000%
0

#14 User is offline   S2000magic 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 439
  • Joined: 2011-November-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yorba Linda, CA
  • Interests:magic, horseback riding, hiking, camping, F1 racing, bridge, mathematics, finance, teaching

Posted 2012-April-25, 08:43

View Postdake50, on 2012-April-25, 08:02, said:

Can't bat 1000%

Or even 100%.

;)

I'd pass, expecting partner to be stronger than the OP's. If that's what partner has, then I'd expect tight defense.
BCIII

"If you're driving [the Honda S2000] with the top up, the storm outside had better have a name."

Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.
0

#15 User is offline   benlessard 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,465
  • Joined: 2006-January-07
  • Location:Montreal Canada
  • Interests:All games. i really mean all of them.

Posted 2012-April-25, 09:31

I really try to avoid doubling with voids, so for me its an easy pass.
From Psych "I mean, Gus and I never see eye-to-eye on work stuff.
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
0

#16 User is offline   inquiry 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 14,566
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amelia Island, FL
  • Interests:Bridge, what else?

Posted 2012-April-25, 09:57

View Postbenlessard, on 2012-April-25, 09:31, said:

I really try to avoid doubling with voids, so for me its an easy pass.


This. +1
--Ben--

#17 User is offline   Phil 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,092
  • Joined: 2008-December-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Texas, USA
  • Interests:Mountain Biking

Posted 2012-April-25, 10:05

Pass. I think this is a better problem at IMPs.
Hi y'all!

Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
0

#18 User is offline   JLOGIC 

  • 2011 Poster of The Year winner
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,002
  • Joined: 2010-July-08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-April-25, 11:16

View PostPhil, on 2012-April-25, 10:05, said:

Pass. I think this is a better problem at IMPs.


Really? I would never consider passing at imps. You go from high risk (zero) to high reward (top!) at MP. You go from high risk (doubled partscore making) to low reward at imps. Well, I guess you might beat them 2 or beat them when a partscore would fail, but your main upside of nipping them a trick when you can make a partscore is no longer very beneficial when playing imps. Definitely seems like a better problem at MP.
0

#19 User is offline   Phil 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,092
  • Joined: 2008-December-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Texas, USA
  • Interests:Mountain Biking

Posted 2012-April-25, 11:46

View PostJLOGIC, on 2012-April-25, 11:16, said:

Really? I would never consider passing at imps. You go from high risk (zero) to high reward (top!) at MP. You go from high risk (doubled partscore making) to low reward at imps. Well, I guess you might beat them 2 or beat them when a partscore would fail, but your main upside of nipping them a trick when you can make a partscore is no longer very beneficial when playing imps. Definitely seems like a better problem at MP.


You never said what you'd bid at IMPs. 2N scrambling I guess?

I started to write a long response, but a lot of my thought process boils down to this question:

"Will partner reopen with the same hands at IMPs as he will at MPs, or can we expect something better"?
Hi y'all!

Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
0

#20 User is offline   nigel_k 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,207
  • Joined: 2009-April-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wellington, NZ

Posted 2012-April-25, 14:38

View Postcherdano, on 2012-April-24, 20:09, said:

Well, of course I would play better than the field in 3, and expect to score 65%. But of course I would also find the correct defense against 2X, for 95%.

More seriously, I don't think this is the right way to think about this problem. It is not clear at all where the field will be - maybe RHO had a borderline 2H raise and the field is playing 1N or 2. If the field is weak, many won't find partner's obvious reopening double and will be defending 2 undoubled. Even if the field reopens, many in our position may actually pass; if 2X is just down one, then good luck scoring better than 50% in 3.

The problem is about comparing your expected score from defending 2X with your expected score from playing 3. Trying to figure out what we expect for playing 3 is obviously a big part of that. If the suggestion is that, because this is hard to figure out and our estimate might be wrong, we should just assume that playing 3 will be worth 50%, then I don't think *that* is the right way to think about this problem, or any problem.
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users