[jmcw]

MATCHPOINTS your call?

---

[ArtK78]

Yes if it is right, no if it is wrong.

This is a pure guess.

[pooltuna]

I think you can probably apply LOTT here so I would not

[mikeh]

jmcw, on 2012-April-13, 09:19, said:

MATCHPOINTS your call?

---

I am not really good at mps, so I will be interested in hearing from those who are.

I know that at the table I would pass...I almost never compete to the 3-level without either a known 6 card fit or extra shape, and I have neither here.

Otoh, this is the best vulnerability for bidding on.

If we were going to take action, maybe the correct call is double....but I think that this is the wrong shape...I have too many spades....I think a classic double would be 2=3=4=4, with 8-9 hcp.

As I said, I think this is a weak part of my game and I await others' input with interest.

[gwnn]

x as a balanced maximum springs to mind.

[Phil]

I pass. This isn't really a guess, but these decisions do not always work out for the good guys.

We are flat, and we have a poor offensive to defensive ratio. Partner should compete with spade shortness and/or a 6th heart. I don't like to think in these terms, but it looks like 15 or 16 trump and my hand type usually ends up in a slight deduction, so I would estimate 15 tricks around the table. if you bid 3♥, you are really hoping for no x or to hear a 3♠ call.

Bidding looks like a way to turn a plus into a minus. Doubling looks very bad too. Even if I nick it one after a stressful ten minutes, it doesn't protect against our presumed +110.

I have sucked at MPs the last month so I'm not the right person to ask.

[kenrexford]

pooltuna, on 2012-April-13, 09:35, said:

I think you can probably apply LOTT here so I would not

Actually, this is one of those auctions where applying the LOTT is impossible.

If we have an 8-card fit and the opponents are playing in a 7-card fit, then we should pass if the LOTT is right. Our cards do not really tell us whether there are good adjustments to doubt the LOTT though.

If the opponents have found an 8-card fit, then there are 16 total tricks available. If they make 2♠, we will go set one trick in 3♥, and -100 or -50 (not sure what the vulnerability is) beats -110. If they go set, we make 3♥, and +140 beats +50 or +100 (again, do not know the vulnerability).

If they have landed on a 9-card fit, then someone is making three. If they are, we go set one, which beats -140. If we are, +140 surely beats -110.

If you had to guess, then it seems like two out of three scenarios favor bidding. But, the three scenarios are not equal. The question seems to be whether the 16-TT layouts are morte common than the 16-TT or 17-TT layouts, with the adjustment possibilities that the 16-TT or 17-TT is off one or two, the converse adjustment that the 15-TT is off in the other direction, and the possible charge for either defensive or declarer error. For that matter, you also have to add in the scenarios where 3♥ is down two but not doubled (if we are NV), the scenarios where the opponents guess that we have a 9-fit and therefore compete to 3♠, assuming a 17-TT layout, and the like.

This, of course, illustrates why the LOTT has dubious application without sufficient knowledge of THEIR suit length.

The flip-side of all of this, however, is that partner, even with a 5-card heart suit, will be thinking along these same lines, knowing already that you have the 8-fit and that the 8-fit merits competition purely on the possible 16-TT layouts. So, with a stiff or void in spades, he might assume a fair likelihood that 3♥ is his winning call, which tends to increase the number of spades in his hand.

Given all of this, the problem is far more substantial than a LOTT analysis can resolve.



EDIT: If this is white on white, as I now think it to be, I would absolutely bid 3♥. Other than the above, the other reason is that a white-on-white auction like this will be common, and the field will often compete to 3♥. Of course, the answers so far suggest that I am wrong in that last point, but I stick with my call because I believe the odds now heavily tilted toward bidding.

[broze]

If I think my opps are better than me I pass. If I think they are worse I bid. A practical solution.

[aguahombre]

We know partner didn't bid 3H, which she would with shape or a 6th heart. We know we are smack in the middle of our 6-flat 10 range for the raise; or if the raise was constuctive, we are smack at the bottom of its offensive potential.

What we don't know is why we should consider bidding again or why we think the opponents have found a spade fit.

[MrAce]

@ Ken : We know they do not have 9 card fit or pd would raise to 3. We know we have only 8 card ♥. Yes, they may have 8 card fit but then again you have a negative adjustment due to 3433 shape and no spots. So they have at best 8 card fit and neg adjustments, or they have 7 or even 6 card fit. So if you use LOTT it is clear to pass.

If you dont use LOTT but your experience, you would have passed it by now anyway.

[rmnka447]

At IMPs, it is important to contest for partscores when the hands are right. If you can push the opponents up a level and set the contract while your partners are making 1 level lower, you'll get some tidy 6-7 IMP swings that are crucial to good IMP performance. And occasionally, you will steal a partscore contract while partners are also making one.

However, your willingness to compete has to be tempered by whether your hand has values or features (shortness, extra trump, etc.) that are likely to be valuable if you go up another level. Those values/features help protect you against being set too badly.

If your values are non-descript as with this hand, then you are usually better off passing. Often hands like this one end up with the same result at both tables. Sometimes, you'll lose a small swing, but by passing you may eliminate putting a -300 or -500 on the table.

[Vampyr]

mikeh, on 2012-April-13, 09:41, said:

I know that at the table I would pass...I almost never compete to the 3-level without either a known 6 card fit or extra shape, and I have neither here.

I am not certain 6 is enough.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-13, 18:04, said:

I am not certain 6 is enough.

Mike was standing on his head, while typing that.

[MrAce]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-13, 18:07, said:

Mike was standing on his head, while typing that.

[frank0]

If you bid this hand which hand do you pass?