How high to compete?

[MickyB]

So what about that 4♥ contract? At IMPs there's a serious risk/reward issue. Opponents will almost surely bid 4♥ over 4♦, figuring that on a bad day they're trading a +50 for a -50 and on a good day they score up +420. This is fairly obvious "IMPs math" and even if 4♥ is fairly low-percentage to make (like say around 30%) the bid is reasonable because you're risking so few IMPs to win so many. So if I pass and 3♥ passes out, I get either -140 or -170, and if I bid 4♦ I get either +50 or -420. Unless I think the odds are substantially in favor of 4♥ failing, I should pass. This implies that bidding 4♦ can only be right on hands with substantial defense, which this hand is not!

I believe that there is a flaw in the logic of the second half of this paragraph.

 

You are correct that the opponents should stretch to bid 4♥ over 4♦, but this isn't in itself an undesireable thing. When they bid what appears to be a 30% game, a large proportion of the time they are going to go negative when, if you had passed, they might have made a comfortable 140. You are pushing them into bidding game more often than they would choose to do so; in absence of any other information, this has to be a good thing.

 

You can be fairly sure that 4♥ is making and it can still be right to bid 4♦ - after all, the opponents are probably about to bid it themselves, and if not, do you still have reason to believe that 4♥ is making?

 

IMO, there are three ways in which you might stand to lose from pushing the opponents into game -

 

- If you are playing against weak, fairly conservative players, then they may fail (or in RHO's case, already have failed) to make an obvious 4♥ bid if you keep quiet.

- Showing your diamond length may help the opponents to evaluate whether to bid 4♥ or not.

- If you think the cards are lying particularly well for your opponents, or you are certain that they have game values, then you don't want to encourage them to bid on.

[cherdano]

There is a conceptual difference between the auction

 

2D (2H) 3D

 

and

 

1H (1S) 2H

 

In the first auction, the 2D bidder (theoretically) limited their hand, as is not expected to act again. The 3D bidder could have all sorts of things - I've seen this type of raise done on a VOID by an absolutely top world class player, which generated a huge penalty for him (he knew how to pick his moment).

 

On the second auction, the 1H opener is unlimited and undefined, so the 2H bidder has to limit his hand; the opener can then take subsequent action as he chooses.

 

 

There was a while ago a long discussion on captaincy. When you open with a limited opening, in general you concede captaincy to partner unless he asks your opinion.

I think the 2D (intermediate) (2H) 3D is somewhere in between 1H (1S) 2H and 2D (weak) (2H) 3D. While 2D describes the strength of this hand, it can be fairly wide-ranging in terms of shape and ODR.

 

Also, unless responder has two ways to raise to 3D, there is a good case for playing 3D as constructive, i.e. partner is allowed to bid again. How else could responder get openers opinion about whether to compete to 4D?

 

Having said that, I would need a more offensive hand to bid 4D or 5D.

 

Arend

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

My partner thought I was crazy to bid this way, but by his own admission he's a better IMP player. The poll seems to confirm partner's opinion though , so I guess it's better to be lucky than good. :)

<snip>

That is certainly true.

And there is a second reason to defend

the bid: You do not win playing by the book.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: If you believe, that they can make 4H,

and that they are good enough to bid it,

and if you also believe, that 5D is at most -2,

than 5D is ok (300 vs. 420).

 

You have to guess, but you do not have a lot of

defence against 4H (1 diamond trick at most,

since you will have a 10 card fit most of the time,

the Ace of spade is the 2nd trick, and partner may

provide the 3rd, ... buth the 4th?)

[the hog]

"Also, unless responder has two ways to raise to 3D, there is a good case for playing 3D as constructive, i.e. partner is allowed to bid again. How else could responder get openers opinion about whether to compete to 4D?"

 

There is a very strong argument for making 2NT a constructive raise. When opener has shown a 6+ carder it is rarely right to play exactly 2NT. You will probably make more or less than 8 tricks, but rarely exactly 8.

We used to play the following =

2D 2H relay GF

2S nat inv

2NT good D raise

3C constructive in H!!

3D poor raise

3M good 6+ suit, gf

3N obvious

 

we lost a 3C bid, but again, when opener has 6D, it is not often right for responder to show a 6 card C suit.

[Impact]

Ron,

 

Actually slight improvement when not playing Myxos:-

 

2H=Relay

2S= nat I

2NT= H I (allows counter try)

or alternatively good for uninterrupted auctions: either C OR H & 3C by opener says would not move over C...

3C= constructive in D

3D= competitive in D

[whereagles]

I think along these lines:

 

"Are opps likely to have 4♥?" I think so. I got 2,5 tricks, but opps seem to have all the high cards in hearts. It wouldn't surprise me that their values fit and 4 is there.

 

"Are opps likely to bid 4♥?" That I'm not sure. There's a chance they won't. However, they are more likely to bid it if I bid 4♦. Since I rate they'll make 4, I might as well be quiet and hope they don't bid it!

 

Therefore, pass now. I think the true problem comes if opps do bid 4♥.