A very simple choice

[bid_em_up]

A couple final comments/questions:

 

But even if I bid 2♦ here, where am I going with his sample hand of x Qxxx xx KQxxxx?   No contract will be a good one.  So maybe I go down one extra in this hand by bidding 3♦.

 

Here is a possible expected return table when bidding 3♦-

 

20%---  plus 13 imps

20%---  flat board

40%--   lose 2 imps

20%--   lose 6 imps

 

This adds up to more than zero, meaning it is a long run winner not loser.   While obviously the percentages are arbitrary on my part, I hardly think they are outrageous.

 

Comments?

Ummm, no, you will be going down a lot more than one extra, frequently doubled, because you just created a game forcing auction, as opposed to bidding 2♦, then 3♦ over partners expected 3♣. (He should pass 3♦ on the hypothetical hand I gave after 2♦ 3♦, but cant after the game force jumpshift).

 

I think your percentages are waaaaaayyyyyyy off. If partner cannot raise diamonds (or bid 2H over 2D), you have just found a what? A MISFIT. It is only because partner had 4 diamonds that this hand turned out successfully for you. I think its more like:

 

 

If partner holds 4+diamonds:

 

Win 10-12 15-25%

Push 25-30%

Lose 6-12 60-45%

 

If partner holds 5+ hearts (I would still expect you to reach 4H at least, but unfortunately the 3D may get you too high later in the auction):

 

Win 10-12 5-10%

Push 45-55%

Lose 6-10 50-35%

 

If partner holds fewer than 4D and fewer than 5 hearts:

 

Win 10-12 5-10%

Push 15-25

Lose 6-10 70-65%

 

And while my percentages also may be slightly off, they are certainly closer than the ones you gave.

 

In my younger years, I would have been right beside you on the 3♦ bid. However, experience has taught me to consider the following likely scenarios:

 

1) Partner passes 2D. It is unlikely you had anything.

 

2) Partner bids 2S over 2D showing a doubleton spade. You can continue with 3D showing the 5-5 and extra values. At least now, partner is better placed in judging the final contract.

 

3) If partner has 10-11 hcp, and 4 diamonds, he should raise 2D to 3D. If he doesnt, find a new partner. Over 3D, you can cuebid, if you wish, or just bid 5D. Reaching the diamond game, in and of itself, should win you the majority of the imps in most cases. 6D is just plain lucky. Partner holds the perfect hand. If he has anything less, you will have nothing other than a partscore available to you. 5D will not be a good proposition on a 5-3 fit.

 

4) What if partner has long hearts? He will bid 2H, and I would usually bid 4H over 2H with this hand expecting to make on a winning percentage basis. This is also dependent on my mood, opps, evaluation of partners declarer skills, recent run of luck, etc. I might just raise to 3 if I wasnt real happy with other factors at the time.

 

5) If partner has no fit or has a fit but is weak, what is the best chance of escaping with a plus or only a small minus? Take the low road and minimize your loss if possible.

 

Ever stop correctly in 3 of a partial when they are making 3NT with slight misdefense in the other room?

 

Ever have a beautiful detailed sequence to a slam that steers opposition away from the most obvious lead to the only one that beats the contract?

 

Ever make a fancy artificial bid that allows a double and gives opposition the best opening lead?

 

It's not that all this wonderful technical creativity doesn't have its place, or even that it isn't a long run winner.  But bridge is played single dummy by humans, not double dummy by Deep Finesse!   :lol:

 

I just believe that especially at the top levels, it is instinct more than science that separates the very best from the best.    Call me Mr. Left Brain!  :lol:

 

Oh boy. Here come the ifs, ands, or buts. All of these are no more than excuses/rationalizations made by up and coming players that we all have used at one point in our bridge lives in a lame attempt to justify a (bad) bid that we have made.

 

While all of these ideas have some small amount of merit and top players frequently make calls based on instinct (or visualization), they rarely take high anti-percentage actions without having a good reason to do so. 3D is a very anti-percentage call. As such, it usually wont be quite as spectacurly successful as it was in this case. Even in this case, it gained you nothing that you couldnt have achieved on a normal 2D bid (partner should raise to 3D), but it rated to cost you a bunch.

 

This is called "losing bridge" in my book.

 

It also irritates your partner to no end when you bid 3D on this kind of hand, especially when you appear to know that 2D is the correct call, but instead, choose to bid 3D anyway. It leaves partner continually wondering from that point on, "Well, does he have a real 3D bid? or does he have one of those 2D bids that he thinks he should bid 3D with?" and wasting valuable mental energy trying to evaluate such nonsense that is better reserved to be used on defending/play of the hand. The other downsides are that, although it was successful this time, it now makes you prone to continue to do the same thing. The next 3-4 times the bid will not be successful and partner is really steamed for the next 5 boards costing your side even more imps (or percentages, if mp). Since you need partner playing with you (and not irritated over a bid for the next 5 boards), it is better to make the correct partnership call (even if its not necessarily the winning one). After all, the game is hard enough with two opponents. Why do you want to create a third opponent in the form of your partner?

 

(And I really dont mean for any of the above to sound as harsh as it seems to come across, but you asked for comments. Please take it as a constructive critique from someone who has been there, to someone who appears to want to learn, why not? for reasons not to bid 3D).

[luke warm]

Ever stop correctly in 3 of a partial when they are making 3NT with slight misdefense in the other room?

yes... but i believe that bidding on the hope of misdefense is a long term loser (unless you know your opps)

Ever have a beautiful detailed sequence to a slam that steers opposition away from the most obvious lead to the only one that beats the contract?

no, not that i can recall

Ever make a fancy artificial bid that allows a double and gives opposition the best opening lead?

yes, but it evens out.. i've also had plenty of doubles of artificial bids get the opps off to the *wrong* lead

It's not that all this wonderful technical creativity doesn't have its place, or even that it isn't a long run winner.  But bridge is played single dummy by humans, not double dummy by Deep Finesse!   :)

true... but why not play the percentages as much as possible?

If partner has 10-11 hcp, and 4 diamonds, he should raise 2D to 3D. If he doesnt, find a new partner.

i've seen this sentiment many times, and it doesn't make sense to me... have you never made a bidding error? were you dumped because of it?

[bid_em_up]

i've seen this sentiment many times, and it doesn't make sense to me... have you never made a bidding error? were you dumped because of it?

You're absolutely right. It was a lame attempt at sarcasm. Sorry.

[microcap]

Don't worry, I have a thick skin. You need one to play with Rex!! :lol:

 

Everyone has convinced me that 2♦ is the right bid. I just don't think 3♦ is quite as egregious an error as most of you.

 

One last question/comment.....in 2/1, where partner will frequently hold just 3♦, why is a 3♦ raise so obvious here?

 

You hold 10 points with the K♣ hardly pulling its weight and good 4 cards in ♦. Let's give partner a 5-3-3-2 12 count--- now what have you done? Partner is on a total guess at this point?

 

It seems to me more likely that you will end up in 4♠ if you rebid2♦, which is certainly not the end of the world but suboptimal on this layout.

 

Thanks again for all the comments. B)

[luke warm]

i've seen this sentiment many times, and it doesn't make sense to me... have you never made a bidding error? were you dumped because of it?

You're absolutely right. It was a lame attempt at sarcasm. Sorry.

to be fair, you aren't the first to say that, and i guess it's just a pet peeve of mine (born, no doubt, from my own many bidding errors)... no harm, no foul

[han]

1. Ever stop correctly in 3 of a partial when they are making 3NT with slight misdefense in the other room?

yes... but i believe that bidding on the hope of misdefense is a long term loser (unless you know your opps)

2. Ever have a beautiful detailed sequence to a slam that steers opposition away from the most obvious lead to the only one that beats the contract?

no, not that i can recall

3. Ever make a fancy artificial bid that allows a double and gives opposition the best opening lead?

yes, but it evens out.. i've also had plenty of doubles of artificial bids get the opps off to the *wrong* lead

 

For what it is worth, I agree with all these quotes by microcap. I certainly think that (1) it pays to bid games aggressively at IMPs because the defense is frequently less than double dummy, (2) it pays to blast to slam onn some hands instead of having scientific auctions, (3) artificial bids sometimes work out badly.

 

All those factors determine what the technically correct bid is. Sometimes blasting to slam or 3NT is technically correct.

[luke warm]

Sometimes blasting to slam or 3NT is technically correct.

maybe so... i think it's the frequency that determines the correctness, but i understand that's matchpoint thinking...

[bid_em_up]

Don't worry, I have a thick skin.   You need one to play with Rex!! :)

 

Everyone has convinced me that 2♦ is the right bid.   I just don't think 3♦ is quite as egregious an error as most of you.

 

One last question/comment.....in 2/1,  where partner will frequently hold just 3♦, why is a 3♦ raise so obvious here? 

 

You hold 10 points with the K♣ hardly pulling its weight and good 4 cards in ♦.  Let's give partner a 5-3-3-2 12 count--- now what have you done?  Partner is on a total guess at this point?

 

It seems to me more likely that you will end up in 4♠ if you rebid2♦, which is certainly not the end of the world but suboptimal on this layout.

 

Thanks again for all the comments. B)

Sorry, I must apologize. In the version of 2/1 that I play, a 2♦ response to 1N forcing guarantees 4+♦. I have been playing it that way for so long now, that I usually forget that it is non-standard. Heck, its standard to me!! :lol:

 

Therefore, the 3♦ raise is automatic in my methods.

 

What you do in yours, is entirely up to you.

[inquiry]

The correct answer is: It depends upon your bidding system.

 

Playing generic 2/1 GF system, the correct bid is clearly 2♦. End of story.

 

Playing some limited opening bid systems (which if course is not 2/1), the correct bid is 3♦, strongish, 5+♦, highly constructive but not forcing.