[AL78]

Another one from yesterday evening with a scratch partner.

MPs, Acol, weak NT, didn't discuss much in the way of system.

---

We have three unavoidable losers so went one down. According to double dummy, 4♥/♠ makes thanks to favourable layouts in both suits meaning they can be played for only one loser. Given the rather limited agreements, is there any realistic way we can find a major game or is this just a somewhat unusual hand?

We got a bad score because a couple of pairs made 5♣, one pair made 4♥ and four pairs didn't bid game.

[DavidKok]

Personally I would not worry too much about finding the making 4M games. It is rare that the Moysian is the best contract. Here are some thoughts anyway:

• The leap to 5♣ was premature. As East I would have rebid 3♦ over 3♣. Incidentally this keeps the Moysians in the picture, but the goal is to find partner with (say) ♦Kx or even ♦Ax (though in that case we'd prefer to be declarer in 3NT). Even without that, I might gamble on 3NT before gambling on 5♣, especially at MPs. They haven't bid it, maybe they haven't got it.
  
• While 4♠ looks straightforward the 4♥ is not that easy. I wonder what happened at the table that made. The main reason I'm bringing this up is to stress the perils of double dummy analysis here - even if the calculator says you can make a game here, that's not at all the same as actually making it even if you do bid it.
  
• Four pairs failing to bid game here is somewhat shocking to me, with 28 HCP combined. Possibly they expertly judged that they had too many losers in 3NT and 5♣, and avoided the 4M games following similar arguments.

[mw64ahw]

Playing Acol it suprises me how many pairs play in the Moysian games versus a 5-card Major approach.
I'd have temporised with 3♠ in case partner had the ♦ stopper. Now you have a better chance of opener picking a Major.

[DavidKok]

Just to avoid any confusion: bidding 4S(G)F and then partner's suit is the normal way to show a game forcing raise. 3♠ is not temporising unless you have a different strong raise available last round, typically something artificial.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would have bid 3NT over 3C, or 3D asking for a half stopper, -1.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2025-August-01, 10:53, said:

Just to avoid any confusion: bidding 4S(G)F and then partner's suit is the normal way to show a game forcing raise. 3♠ is not temporising unless you have a different strong raise available last round, typically something artificial.

Not quite sure what you're saying here. 3♠ is obviously a waiting bid given we are in a GF.

[P_Marlowe]

mw64ahw, on 2025-August-01, 12:39, said:

Not quite sure what you're saying here. 3♠ is obviously a waiting bid given we are in a GF.

No, it sets the spade fit below game, after having established a gf.
It is also the start of a control bidding seq, if opener has a control, he should bid it,
and showing the control is not optional.

[mycroft]

Clearly it is a "found our fit, partner. Start cuebidding" bid. A873 K974 Q4 AQT, say (works better with a conventional 3NT (serious or frivolous), but still), or better.

That's what he's saying, and he's right, that is the normal way to game force in partner's second suit playing 4SF. Now, maybe partner would have preferred to be able to bid 2♠ (and now 3♠ could be something else), but you took that out of partner's hands by bidding 3♣. And partner should be expecting you to bid past 2♠, really, so highly likely.

Yeah, one of the joys of "standard" systems is the "one of the first three bids should limit your hand" problem. We're 6 bids in and all we know is that opener has an opener and responder has a game force or better. If we haven't agreed on our spade fit *either*, it's hopeless.

I agree with David on 3♦, too; whether that would have found the Moysian or not, "at matchpoints, bidding 5♣ requires a note from your mother." We *really* want to find 3NT if it's right. After opener says "yeah, we have a diamond hole", possibly it's time to suggest playing the Moysian (clearly you don't have 4, or you would have bid 3♠ or 4♠ last time, no?). And it's quite likely that opener will choose to play it as "best worst option".

And I'm not surprised that 4cM systems play a lot more Moysians than 5cM systems do. One of the big reasons to move to a more artificial system (opening ♣876 (or even ♣87) instead of ♠AKT4 is certainly not "more Natural") is the number of auctions where you don't have room enough to show both your strength and your fifth/fourth trump, so you end up playing the major "in case it's 8" . Some (including our hrothgar) claim this can be a *benefit* of 4cM, especially at low levels, especially in competitive auctions against opponents addicted to the Law of Total Trumps. And, you know, when you get *good* at playing Moysians "because I've been in so many of them" (tm Ozzie) you're not as scared of playing them, if it looks like the most likely game, and not being scared means you play them better, too, and make more of them.

[bluenikki]

AL78, on 2025-August-01, 09:28, said:

Another one from yesterday evening with a scratch partner.

MPs, Acol, weak NT, didn't discuss much in the way of system.

---

We have three unavoidable losers so went one down.

Single dummy, we've all been in worse contracts than 5♣. Especially if the opponents rectify the count at tricks 1 & 2.

That said, it is surely valuable for matchpoints to learn how to declare 4-3 game contracts.

[P_Marlowe]

As far as I can see, West could still have Jxx, and the Ace of hearts single.
If this would be the case, you want to play 3NT.

It happens to be Jx vs Qx. Next board.

[DavidKok]

bluenikki, on 2025-August-01, 13:35, said:

Single dummy, we've all been in worse contracts than 5♣. Especially if the opponents rectify the count at tricks 1 & 2.

Interesting contract. If the hearts are 3-3 (or a specific layout - South having ♥Tx and North covering the jack with ♥Qxxx to erroneously fight the pin) we make, but you're opting for the major suit trump (ruffing) squeeze around hearts instead. I wonder which line gives the best odds.

mycroft, on 2025-August-01, 13:26, said:

I agree with David on 3♦, too; whether that would have found the Moysian or not, "at matchpoints, bidding 5♣ requires a note from your mother." We *really* want to find 3NT if it's right. After opener says "yeah, we have a diamond hole", possibly it's time to suggest playing the Moysian (clearly you don't have 4, or you would have bid 3♠ or 4♠ last time, no?). And it's quite likely that opener will choose to play it as "best worst option".

I think this is the most realistic route to the Moysian, but if I'm fully honest I think I would have bid 3NT with one of the two hands by then and missed out on the good 4♠ game. Personally I find it challenging to be objective having seen both hands.
I play more space-saving versions of 4SGF here which help resolve some of the issues on this hand, and (I think, by coincidence, on this auction) leave room to probe for partial stoppers and suggest the Moysian below 3NT. However, AL's sequence is completely normal.

[AL78]

DavidKok, on 2025-August-01, 09:41, said:

• Four pairs failing to bid game here is somewhat shocking to me, with 28 HCP combined. Possibly they expertly judged that they had too many losers in 3NT and 5♣, and avoided the 4M games following similar arguments.

The overall standard of the club, at least of the players who play when I have played, is low. On this session the NGS of the field was around 44%, so despite the fact we won with a shade under 60%, my NGS was still negatively impacted.