[rhm]

---

Matchpoints, new partnership, 11 tricks were made.

How should the bidding have gone?

Rainer Herrmann

[kgr]

I don't like 2♠. It feels more like a normal TO with 4c♠.
I would rather bid 2♦ or 2♥, I would go for 2♥.

[Endymion77]

East is 100% to blame. After West bids freely, 2♠ is merely competitive (especially at MPs there's a case to be made that it shouldn't promise any extra values at all). The initial double is OK but I would bid 2♦ over 2♣ (3♣ would be a slight overbid, and 2♥ is natural like 2♦ so it's out of the question).

[Cascade]

I like

1♣ X 1♥ 1♠
2♣ 2♦ Pass 3♦
Pass 3♠ Pass 4♠
Pass Pass Pass

or

1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠
2♣ 3♠ Pass 4♠
Pass Pass Pass

NB Double and then 2♥ should definitely be natural otherwise you are too easily talked out of bidding a good heart suit. 1♥ by responder can be on a very poor suit even without the possibility of a psyche.

[ahydra]

I'd have bid like Cascade's second auction. East gets the blame - I don't like DBL particularly, the hand isn't quite strong enough for X-then-bid and you don't have a 4cM, in the meantime you do have a very nice diamond suit and can follow up with X later to show the values. However when partner chimes in with a free 1S, a raise to 3S sums up the hand nicely. Even 4S direct isn't too crazy if playing IMPs.

ahydra

[P_Marlowe]

Undiscussed, the single raise to 2S is not enough.

This could be a matter of being on the same wavelength, but
you need to discuss.

It is not 100% clear, what East should bid, ..., seeing both
hands, 2D seems clear, but I am not sure, I would bid this on
the table.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gordontd]

It's interesting that although there is unanimity about the 2♠ bid, there's considerable variation in what people prefer. I'd be inclined to make a second double, which to my mind shows only three-card spade support with extras. I don't strongly object to 2♦, but I could imagine other circumstances when it would lead us to play in diamonds when spades (at matchpoints) are better, since I think it rather cancels the message of spade tolerance.

[cherdano]

I would also make a second double of 2♣.

[Jinksy]

I'll add my vote to overcalling 1D. It's a style question, but this is not a wildly unusual hand and it seems to help here, since it surely makes the 1S overcall show 5.

After 1C 1D 1H 1S / 2C I prefer 3C to 3S (mainly because it's harder for a pick-up P to recognise as inv+ on values - I can imagine them taking 3S as competitive. It also might guard against a W who did still bid 1S on a 4-card suit), but it should get us to the same place.

[MrAce]

Imho Gordon nailed it.

[mikeh]

MrAce, on 2014-April-23, 07:04, said:

Imho Gordon nailed it.

agreed. textbook hand for a second double.

[steve2005]

Jinksy, on 2014-April-23, 06:04, said:

I'll add my vote to overcalling 1D. It's a style question, but this is not a wildly unusual hand and it seems to help here, since it surely makes the 1S overcall show 5.

After 1C 1D 1H 1S / 2C I prefer 3C to 3S (mainly because it's harder for a pick-up P to recognise as inv+ on values - I can imagine them taking 3S as competitive. It also might guard against a W who did still bid 1S on a 4-card suit), but it should get us to the same place.

I like 1♦ also. it puts you in a good position to make a bid showing a maximum with your next bid.

Starting with a double your setting yourself up to overbid with your next bid.

[aguahombre]

IMO, if I had chosen Double initially, a second double would have been a necessary overbid, but preferable to the raise.

Andy's second auction...the 1D overcall and the jump raise of West's free spade advance would be our choice. It might be relevant that we don't make 4-card new-suit advances to overcalls.

Either way, East gets all the blame. He neither overcalled to launch the easy road nor double-doubled.

[mikeh]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-23, 09:18, said:

IMO, if I had chosen Double initially, a second double would have been a necessary overbid, but preferable to the raise.

Imo, the second double is not an overbid at all. It is a standard treatment, and I would advocate it with a lesser hand and, say, 3=4=5=1 shape, a shape on which I would assume broader support for the initial double. I believe it to be at least NA standard that the second double shows a desire to compete with only 3 card support, so it surely need not be a full, control-laden 17 count

Quote

Andy's second auction...the 1D overcall and the jump raise of West's free spade advance would be our choice. It might be relevant that we don't make 4-card new-suit advances to overcalls.

I disagree here as well, altho much depends on what one needs to advance via a free 1♠ (regardless of whether S would pass over 1♦). I don't think it to be correct to run from 1♦ with shortness in diamonds and no values, so I would play 1♠ as either forcing (my style) or at least constructive (a style I find persuasive), and with this monster, having overcalled 1♦, I can't imagine not forcing to game, and would do so via the cuebid. 3♠ is not forcing in any method with which I am familiar.

[aguahombre]

Mikeh, I agree that 3S would not be forcing. But the reason I believe it is correct is because this auction is not the same as:

(1C) 1D (P) 1S...where 1S is constructive but not forcing and we want to be in game.

In:

(1C) 1D (1H)..it would be a crime not to bid 1S with (say) JTXXX QX XXX KXX, and 3S would be passed.

[rhm]

Up to now we have 22 votes, of which 20 blame East and the 2♠ bid.
I found this deal interesting and I happen to disagree and the analysis below explains why.

Let us look at the problem again from the perspective of East-West when the bidding started as shown:

Matchpoints

---

Would you really want to be in 4♠?

If South has an entry, probably in form of the ♥K, which is suggested by the bidding, how do you suggest to make 4♠?
There is virtually no play for ten tricks, even though West does have five spades and a near maximum for his "free" 1♠ bid.
And you could possibly lose even a second trump trick, by guessing wrong on the third round of clubs.
After this start I would never want to be higher at matchpoints, but I prefer 2♠ even vulnerable at IMPs.

As to the bidding:
East hand is certainly not strong enough to double and then overcall.
I would never prefer a 1♦ overcall to DBL, certainly not at matchpoints. Minors are for children.
Overcalling first and then double shows more diamond orientation, say 3♠=3♥=6♦=1♣

East has a difficult choice at his second turn.

Yet no other strain besides spades looks likely to be better, at least not at matchpoints.
It is true that 2♠ tends to show four card support and does not really hint at a lot of extra HCP.
A second double is probably a better description of East hand in a well oiled partnership, but how does it help?
If West bids 2♠ over a second DBL East will pass. If West bids anything else, say 2NT you are likely headed for a minus score.
I think East wants to play 2♠, the extra HCP strength somewhat compensates for the fourth spade and the doubleton club.

This deal was played at 67 tables in a BBO tournament and 11 tricks for +200 was worth well above average.
Making ten tricks for +170 was worth 50%.
(Even though at few other tables did South bid)
Reaching 4♠ on this deal, is a top or bottom decision, with a bottom much more likely when the bidding starts like here.
It seems that we are all result merchants and far too much mesmerized by the actual deal layout and the actual result

Rainer Herrmann

[nick jacob]

Result merchanting has nothing to do with it. 4S could be going off and I would disagree with East's 2S. Why can West not have JTxxx, Qxx, Qxx, xx when 4S is where we want to be? Or xxxx, Qxx, Qx, KJTx when we can play 3NT? Enjoy playing the latter in 2S going off with 3NT cold!

I think you are severely overestimating the effect of matchpoints on the decision as well as underestimating the utility of doubling a second time, enabling us to find a better partscore and investigate the correct game if there is one.

[rhm]

nick jacob, on 2014-April-29, 00:22, said:

Why can West not have JTxxx, Qxx, Qxx, xx when 4S is where we want to be?

I do not want to be in 4♠ with this hand. You chances losing two clubs, a spade and a heart are high.
When I bid game voluntarily I want a reasonable chance that this contract makes. 4♠ is not completely hopeless but reasonable (at least 40%) it is not.

Quote

Or xxxx, Qxx, Qx, KJTx when we can play 3NT? Enjoy playing the latter in 2S going off with 3NT cold!

Your mileage may vary, but if the bidding starts

---

it would not occur to me to bid anything but 1NT with ♠xxxx,♥Qxx,♦Qx,♣KJTx.
Even if East has four spades (from West perspective) I doubt that a spade contract will on average take more tricks than notrumps and it will often take less if spades do not break.
I had good experience with notrump bids, when hands look suitable for notrump. Granted I am not always getting a good score, but I have checked my results and I know it is a winner for me.
1NT will often be final where I just need to collect 7 tricks to write positive, while the chances of being able to declare 1♠ is negligible, should we have an eight card fit there.
Finally, as you point out rightly, it is easier to bid notrumps first and suggest spades later than the other way round.

I do not subscribe to the notion, that any pair of hands with a 4-4 fit in a major need to be played in that strain.
In fact I consider a 1♠ response on ♠xxxx,♥Qxx,♦Qx,♣KJTx the mark of a poor dogmatic player.
Bridge is more than a random collection of rules of thumb.

A recent example from a club tournament, where the average standard is high:

Matchpoints

---

As North I was pondering my rebid where few would consider anything but raising spades.
Finally I bid 1NT and played it there.

Double Dummy both 2♠ and 1NT are down one.
The hand was played 6 times, 4 times in 2♠ and twice in 1NT.

1NT was allowed to make while all declarers in 2♠ went down. An accident?

Rainer Herrmann

[nick jacob]

Sorry, I meant for the first example to have the heart king and not the queen, which is still well within the realms of a 1S advance, and which makes game a great prospect.

I do not know why you need to mar your reasonable point about advancing 1NT by being blunt and rude. I don't even particularly know what your agenda is presenting the hand in this way. Considering only the East cards, I think south will often compete to 3C, given the opponents seem unlikely to have an 8-card fit in hearts (no X from north). In this case, you have given yourself the last guess and have not empowered partner to act at all. If they do not compete, it is likely that they have too many spades and you may encounter difficulties in the play of 2S (when 2D or 3D would be much easier).

Bidding 2S just feels like playing solitaire. You have worked out in your mind what is percentage, double-dummy, and are not consulting partner on his opinion. This may involve missing game or playing the wrong partscore, and for what? Fear that 2NT/3D/3S is too high? If partner could bid 2NT I would be delighted to put this dummy down.

[ggwhiz]

I would overcall 1♦ planning to double next if they bid more clubs but my regular partner would double and double.

Both styles work even in the same partnership. 100% east.