[diana_eva]

Hi,

So we played a 2 table tourney with MP scoring which was super-random. On this particular board turns out all choices we would have made were worth a zero, but still we'd like to understand if the bidding was OK or not.

---

1. What does the 3♠ bid show? Does it promise extras, or is it competitive? Is South worth a 3♠ bid?
2. Is North's X over 4♣ unreasonable? Is it still unreasonable considering this is MP scoring with only 1 other very random resulting table?

Thanks for answering.

[Fluffy]

double shows extras, but it tends to be only 3♠ hand. 3♠ is just competitive.

it is nobody vul MPs? then south is obviously worth the bid.


About final double, this is a BAM thing and I never played that format.

[diana_eva]

Yes it's MP scoring, everyone non-vul.

[Codo]

1. If you play 3 ♠ as purely competetive, you will win in some situations. Here, you lose, because north cannot judge the defensive prospects of his side as good as someone who knows that his partner has extras.
But still 3 ♠ as a competetive 4 card raise is the current state of the art. It is of more importance to double without promising 4 spades and showing the fit later then to have the ability to show extra strength with a 3 spade bid. So south has his bid.

2. I dislike norths double, even at mps. He has some points, but just one trick on defence, nothing more then partner will expect for his 2 ♠ bid.

[Zelandakh]

diana_eva, on 2012-May-09, 02:29, said:

1. What does the 3♠ bid show? Does it promise extras, or is it competitive? Is South worth a 3♠ bid?
2. Is North's X over 4♣ unreasonable? Is it still unreasonable considering this is MP scoring with only 1 other very random resulting table?

1. The traditional meaning of 3♠ here is an invite. However, practically everyone above intermediate now seems to play it as competitive. With a stronger hand you have to either bid 4♠, cue bid, or make a second double.
2. The problem with this double is that North just does not have a great deal of defence. Queens in your long suits are very offensive so you are quite likely looking at only 1 trick - it might even be worse. We don't really expect partner to have more than 2 defensive tricks on this auction. Probably better to trust our team-mates to also compete aggressively. Doubling when it is wrong means we lose the board at our table, not doubling will usually at least keep the other table live.

[gszes]

all was fine until the final x of 4c.
Good decision to x vs 1d balance by south,
a good competitive 2s bid. 3s competitive
by 3 good x to show extra no clear action
and if s has extras and spades they can bid
4s. In light of the competitive nature of the
3s bid (normally based more on distribution
than power) and x of 4c seems ummm optimistic
with maybe 1 1/2 tricks and expecting p to
take the rest we need even though they have
promised more of a minimum. You have pushed
the opps to the 4 level maybe thats all you
need to win the board. An x here needs to
set them by 2 tricks to protect your possible
part score----do you really think you can get
them 2 tricks under the circumstances?? u have
2 clubs and p has announced short they may have
ten trumps------x is just not safe here.

[MrAce]

There was another thread i posted recently, similar situation, where i doubled again with a good hand and 4 card support. People found it weird, ironically same people play simple support as competitive. If you are playing 3♠ here competitive, you need to not rule out 4 card fits in 2nd double imo.

In this hand, i would certainly bid 3♠, pd made a free 2♠ bid, we are not supporting his forced 1♠ bid, we dont need extras for this. No need to mention he may have 5 card ♠

[ArtK78]

I disagree with 3♠ being competitive in this situation.

South balanced with a double, not with a 1♠ call. Therefore, his strength is unlimited, and his shape may be atypical for a takeout double if he is strong. So, over 3♣, he should pass with a normal balancing double and bid 3♦, 3♥ and 3♠ with extras (and, in the case of a red suit bid, a strong suit and EXTRAS - stronger than a jump in a red suit in balancing seat).

I would never bid 3♠ in direct seat over 3♣ on these cards. Partner will expect a hand of approximately the shape and strength that I have, so he will act accordingly.

Having said that, the double of 4♣ is not unreasonable at matchpoints if partner expects the balancing hand to be stronger than it was. It is a classic matchpoint situation - if 4♣ is making, you probably are getting a terrible result anyway, so you might as well double to get as much as you can if 4♣ is going down. You might get 300 as compensation for your 140.

As this is essentially BAM, you are only wrong if your "teammates" are playing in clubs undoubled and the hand makes 10 tricks in clubs or if you were not making spades anyway and 4♣ is a normal spot. That does not seem likely on this auction.