[pilowsky]

---

I picked up (so to speak) this hand on Board 22 in todays club game.
Matchpoints and in the last round sitting close to the lead - which led me to be (more than usually) cautious.

Looking over the results of the others most people sitting North bid 2♣ or 2♦ to indicate majors.

I can now account for at least 32 of the 40 HCP at the table.
I'm pretty sure West has no 5CM and <6 of either major.
My question is how would the experts proceed - both as overcaller - and after partners forced response.

[LBengtsson]

Pass. Take the plus score. You have a 15-17 no trump against you. Partner could well have dragged a 2M response on a 3343 hand. You have so much strength in the majors that the 1NT opener must have most of the strength in the minors. You could land on a dime and find partner with something like ♠Qx ♥Jxxxx ♦xxxx ♣Kx and 4♥ makes, but even 3♥ could be in jeopardy if he does not have the right cards.

I suppose those that bid aggressively might try 3♦ showing the stiff [unsure it does actually show that] and if partner does not take the hint and bails in 3♥ you decide to leave it there.

That is my take on it. I would be interested what others have to say. Good hand to post.

[DavidKok]

If you do bid on I think you should bid 2♠ to show the 5-4 and significant extras. That way you won't get too high when partner holds 2=3 in the majors, and partner can even pass with 2=4 (and of course with 2=2 or 3=3, or in a panic with 1=1 or 1=2). Any other call is too risky for my tastes. I'm not sure whether pass or 2♠ is better - I'd probably bid 2♠ (because what else should that bid show?).

[Cyberyeti]

What do you need for game ? Potentially xx, J10xx, xxxx, Kxx or Qxx, xxxx, xxxx, xx. What might you get ? xxx, xxx, x/K xxx, xxx

Tough hand and probably suitable for a sim, I presume a penalty double wasn't an option which is what I'd have done (and could also go badly wrong).

[helene_t]

I think 2♠ as David suggests is reasonable. Especially if dbl would have been penalty, in that case you can't have more than this for your 2♦ bid.

3♦ showing a singleton is not something I would do without discussion. 2♥ can be a 4-2 fit so we should still be able to stop in a different strain than hearts. I would take 3♦ as a 4450 or 4441, maybe 5404 with poor spades, and extras of course.

[mikeh]

To me, 2S would show 6=4 majors (and extras) or 5=4 with a LOT of extras. This hand isn’t going to play well if advancer has 2=2 majors (or 1=2), and we’d need a lot of luck, in game, if he has even 3 hearts

This is mps. That form of scoring rewards plus scores.

Btw, this hand type, which is common (both majors but one longer than the other) is a major (pun intended) reason why few defensive conventions use 2D for the majors and, instead, use 2C.

Over 2D, advancer has to guess which major to bid with equal length. When 2C shows the majors, advancer can bid 2D with no preference and overcaller bids the longer major (or picks, if equal).

I don’t think this hand is strong enough for 2S. Make it the same honour location and 6=4, I’d be ok with it.

At imps…tougher decision.

Btw, i post my pass despite the inference I draw, from the wording of the OP, that bidding works here. May I suggest that such a hint ought to be avoided. It’s tough enough to be objective on any bidding problem. One always wonders ‘why’ the hand was posted. It’s often because the normal action didn’t work and that can bias a response. When one is basically told that passing, which looks normal to me, doesn’t work, then that can’t help but create bias in favour of bidding.

I’m not saying that the bidders were biased…just that it’s something to avoid if possible.

Otherwise, a good problem….while I think pass is normal, it could definitely be ‘wrong’ opposite a range of hands.

[DavidKok]

Ah, I completely missed that it's matchpoints. My mistake, I would pass at that form of scoring.

[pilowsky]

Thanks for that.
Almost everyone ended in 2♥ or 2♠ with 1 in 3♠ and 1 in 3♥.
None of the NS pairs found 3NT which in this particular case is the only making game contract.
I did wonder if there were any approaches beyond the usual overcall methods for locating 3NT/4M in these situations.
Especially with the trend towards weaker NT ranges (we use 14-17) or against a genuine weak NT pair.


Here's the full hand.

---

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2023-February-09, 06:17, said:

Btw, this hand type, which is common (both majors but one longer than the other) is a major (pun intended) reason why few defensive conventions use 2D for the majors and, instead, use 2C.

Over 2D, advancer has to guess which major to bid with equal length. When 2C shows the majors, advancer can bid 2D with no preference and overcaller bids the longer major (or picks, if equal).

Which also puts 1NT opener on lead to what is probably the stronger of our two hands.

[helene_t]

3NT is a quite lucky make, I don't think I would like to bid it. Anyway, I don't think it is biddable either. North might bid 2♠ but even in that case, it just ends in 2♠.

A bit more realistic, maybe, is that North doesn't bid at all and we collect 300 or 400 depending on whether E tries the diamond finesse.

Or North could double, they will run to 2♦ but with a bit of inspiration we get to double 2♦, and 200 should be very good at matchpoints.

[bluenikki]

pilowsky, on 2023-February-09, 17:01, said:

Thanks for that.
Almost everyone ended in 2♥ or 2♠ with 1 in 3♠ and 1 in 3♥.
None of the NS pairs found 3NT which in this particular case is the only making game contract.
I did wonder if there were any approaches beyond the usual overcall methods for locating 3NT/4M in these situations.
Especially with the trend towards weaker NT ranges (we use 14-17) or against a genuine weak NT pair.


Here's the full hand.

---

I have no experience with the convention. But what is the rationale for advancing in the much weaker 3-card suit?

[apollo1201]

bluenikki, on 2023-February-10, 06:55, said:

I have no experience with the convention. But what is the rationale for advancing in the much weaker 3-card suit?

Maybe that with a potentially unequal 2-suiter, it is preferable that the longer should be the cheaper?

BTW that is why I play 2C for majors

[bluenikki]

apollo1201, on 2023-February-10, 12:33, said:

Maybe that with a potentially unequal 2-suiter, it is preferable that the longer should be the cheaper?

BTW that is why I play 2C for majors

Do you mean that intervenor should avoid the convention if the shorter suit is cheaper?

For me, if I would potentially be declaring a 4-3, I'd prefer the strong 3-card! For the dummy reversal chance.

[apollo1201]

bluenikki, on 2023-February-11, 06:12, said:

Do you mean that intervenor should avoid the convention if the shorter suit is cheaper?

Yeah, so I was told because with equal lengths, partner should usually make the more economic bid. So a bit the hen and the egg, finally.