[eagles123]

MP

---

Thanks,

Eagles

[Endymion77]

I would pattern out with 3♣ in case partner has nothing in hearts but it's close (mainly because it's possible that 3♠ is a trick too high which would be a MP disaster)

[the hog]

Pass. I do not understand anyone bidding on after a simple raise.

[diana_eva]

I'd pass too. Partner cd have bid 3s invite or 4th suit GF with a good hand, which he didn't. So he might be somewhere in the 8-9 range, or a flat 10 at best. With more he shd have jumped. Safer to pass at MPs and play it the best you can.

[the hog]

Endymion77, on 2014-April-17, 03:16, said:

I would pattern out with 3♣ in case partner has nothing in hearts but it's close (mainly because it's possible that 3♠ is a trick too high which would be a MP disaster)

Anyway, 3C is not patterning out. It is a gt asking for help in Cs.

[eagles123]

Well I did pass which I thought was pretty obvious, but P had

9875
AQT2
QJ5
T9

game made easily enough and it was a bad score when most of the room were in 4 making rather than our 2+2.

maybe others just saw the "5 loser hand" and thought they had to bid game lol?


Eagles

[diana_eva]

the hog, on 2014-April-17, 04:26, said:

Anyway, 3C is not patterning out. It is a gt asking for help in Cs.

If you agree to play that. I have never played 3c as game try asking for help in clubs. It annoys me when people state a bid IS THIS when it could reasonably be any of 5 other things.

[gordontd]

eagles123, on 2014-April-17, 04:48, said:

Well I did pass which I thought was pretty obvious, but P had

9875
AQT2
QJ5
T9

game made easily enough and it was a bad score when most of the room were in 4 making rather than our 2+2.

maybe others just saw the "5 loser hand" and thought they had to bid game lol?

Or those with your partner's hand just saw the "8 loser hand" and raised to 3♠?

[helene_t]

Playing weak NT, opener must have real diamonds and/or 15-16 points so responder could upgrade for the nice diamonds honors and bid 3♠. Then again, her trumps are horrible and ♥Q wasted opposite partner's most likely shortness.

So I think your auctions was fine.

[whereagles]

I would bid on. Pard may easily have 5 weakish hearts, in which case hands fit.

3♣, pinpointing the heart singleton, seems appropriate, although in this case pard is likely to reject the invite.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2014-April-17, 05:17, said:

Or those with your partner's hand just saw the "8 loser hand" and raised to 3♠?

It's not that it's an 8 loser hand, that in itself is insufficient, it's that ♦QJx is huge and you have the A♥ opposite a possible singleton rather than KJxx/KQxx.

[kenberg]

My first thought, looking at this modest collection, was to leave well enough alone and pass. On second thought, partner could have four small hearts and values elsewhere. Maybe the ♣A and the ♠K would be enough and if these values were enhanced by the ♦Q a spade contract might play well. So I went with 3♣.

My idea of 3♣ is not that I want xx as help, I want Ax. (or Kx, not possible with my holding). I want partner to discount his minor heart honors and look elsewhere. Of course AQ is something of a hybrid.Ace good, Q maybe. I am not entirely sure that I would accept this invitation with responder's hand. The QJx in diamonds certainly makes it tempting. I see the diamonds J as more valuable than the heart Q.


What we have here is a total of 23 highs and hands that fit not bad but not great. With some luck you lose a likely spade, a club, a diamond. But you definitely could lose more and you don't need to be particularly unlucky for that to happen.

[MrAce]

It's MP, you got the boss suit and no one pushed you to 3 level, I would just enjoy my 2♠

[mikeh]

eagles123, on 2014-April-17, 04:48, said:

Well I did pass which I thought was pretty obvious, but P had

9875
AQT2
QJ5
T9

game made easily enough and it was a bad score when most of the room were in 4 making rather than our 2+2.

maybe others just saw the "5 loser hand" and thought they had to bid game lol?


Eagles

You say that game made easily enough, but that should never be the reason for worrying about whether you should be there. What if you had 2 spades losers, and had bid game and gone down? Would you then try to see why you should have stayed in a partial?

As it happens, this is a borderline type of contract. There are all kinds of things that could lead to a minus score in game, including a ruff in either minor or 2 trump losers, and even if the trumps honours are ok, a bad break might make scoring 10 winners problematic.

It's the sort of game you'd like to be in at imps, but at mps I would never get worked up about missing this one. Partner could have a hand that makes the 3-level unsafe. The fact is that standard methods don't do that well here, because for most players the 1♠ call has a very wide range, which in turn means partner has to raise with some fairly weak hands in case you had just short of a jumpshift.

By making a gametry you create several ways to lose: the 3 level is too high; partner accepts but the hands don't mesh; partner accepts, the hands mesh, but bad stuff happens. By passing you have only one way to lose: partner accepts, the hands mesh, and nothing bad happens. Of course, you can break even as well: partner rejects and you make 9+ tricks.

At imps, vul, the single upside is probably worth the risk of the downsides, but not, imo at least, at mps.

Switch to precision, and now the 2♠ call has a higher minimum, since your hand is capped at 15, and partner wouldn't need to stretch to raise, and you'd have an easy game try, which partner should accept with his working cards.

[StevenG]

mikeh, on 2014-April-17, 09:34, said:

Switch to precision, and now the 2♠ call has a higher minimum, since your hand is capped at 15, and partner wouldn't need to stretch to raise, and you'd have an easy game try, which partner should accept with his working cards.

Does this logic not also apply to Acol-style bidding where the 1♠ rebid is non-forcing, and opener would have to rebid 2♠ to create a force?

I don't know what Eagles and his partner play, but that's probably what the majority of the room are playing.

[gszes]

AQT3
9
KT42
KQ85

9875
AQT2
QJ5
T9

This is hardly a game to write home about---75%+ chance of
1 spade loser
25% chance of 2 spade losers
1 dia loser
1 club loser.

Any time the hand loses the 3 normal tricks you still need to
guess well in clubs to make it. The contract seems to be a
fair distance below 50% which is a reasonable cut off point at
MP.

I would bid 3c (the hog) as a help suit game try and after my p
3h bid I would sign off in 3s so I would miss game also. Not
being in game can be just as big a MP disaster as being too high
but the risk seems reasonable here since all we really need from
p is a hand like Jxxx xxx Ax Jxxx to give us a great shot at game
so trying for game here is hardly the worst decision ever made.

[MrAce]

As I said I would pass 2♠ even after the fact that OP said it makes 4 but...I am curious, if 3m is a trial bid, which I agree it is, then why everyone who made a move used ♣ suit as oppose to ♦ suit is unknown to me.

They had 2 suits to make trial, one of them being KT42 other KQ85.

[dfortune08]

gszes, on 2014-April-17, 14:24, said:

AQT3
9
KT42I think you must invite. You have a 4/4 fit in spades
with 17 points. Partner if weak could pass 1S. If they have 7 or 8 you have a chance at game!! And the cheese stands alone...I'm surprised!!
KQ85

9875
AQT2
QJ5
T9

This is hardly a game to write home about---75%+ chance of
1 spade loser
25% chance of 2 spade losers
1 dia loser
1 club loser.

Any time the hand loses the 3 normal tricks you still need to
guess well in clubs to make it. The contract seems to be a
fair distance below 50% which is a reasonable cut off point at
MP.

I would bid 3c (the hog) as a help suit game try and after my p
3h bid I would sign off in 3s so I would miss game also. Not
being in game can be just as big a MP disaster as being too high
but the risk seems reasonable here since all we really need from
p is a hand like Jxxx xxx Ax Jxxx to give us a great shot at game
so trying for game here is hardly the worst decision ever made.

[kenberg]

MrAce, on 2014-April-17, 14:55, said:

As I said I would pass 2♠ even after the fact that OP said it makes 4 but...I am curious, if 3m is a trial bid, which I agree it is, then why everyone who made a move used ♣ suit as oppose to ♦ suit is unknown to me.

They had 2 suits to make trial, one of them being KT42 other KQ85.

I appreciate this question. The Poll describes 3♣ as a "trial bid" which might or might not have a different meaning from "Help suit game try". I like to use the bid as "I have some values here, if you have something to add this might work well". I am not generally looking for shortness in clubs with this 3♣ call.

In Bridge, Zia and Me I believe Rosenberg credits his wife Debbie with convincing him that it doesn't work to be asking for either shortness or high card help, it should ask for one or the other. This seems right to me. So my thinking would be that when I show values in clubs I am also showing at least some sort of decent length in clubs and therefore heart shortness. Partner should treat KJxx of hearts as basically worthless, maybe a slow trick with luck, but treat honors in either minor with respect.

I would be very interested in hearing just what you and others think 3♣ should be/show/ask.

[MrAce]

kenberg, on 2014-April-18, 12:57, said:

I appreciate this question. The Poll describes 3♣ as a "trial bid" which might or might not have a different meaning from "Help suit game try". I like to use the bid as "I have some values here, if you have something to add this might work well". I am not generally looking for shortness in clubs with this 3♣ call.

In Bridge, Zia and Me I believe Rosenberg credits his wife Debbie with convincing him that it doesn't work to be asking for either shortness or high card help, it should ask for one or the other. This seems right to me. So my thinking would be that when I show values in clubs I am also showing at least some sort of decent length in clubs and therefore heart shortness. Partner should treat KJxx of hearts as basically worthless, maybe a slow trick with luck, but treat honors in either minor with respect.

I would be very interested in hearing just what you and others think 3♣ should be/show/ask.

I thought it needed help in ♣ suit, as Hog stated. What you wrote sounds very reasonable to me. But I was just curious if I am missing something when 3m is asking help in that suit. Your interpretation is more like patterning out if it shows ♥ shortness. Which is perfectly fine for me if agreed,