Minor against minor

[david_c]

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sqxxhqxxxdakt9xxc]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

You open 1♦ (4+), and the auction continues - (2♣) - 2♦ - (3♣) back to you.

 

Your call?

[Gerben42]

I guess I'd just bid 3♦ so overcaller cannot ask for a stopper below 3NT. If overcaller bids 3NT, I'll bid 4♦. If they go for 4♣ I will just leave it at that.

[rogerclee]

4♦

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Given the junk I usually have, if I raise partner

in this kind of situation, 3D is enough, but I am

not sure, I can sell out to 4C, although I really

believe this would be best, ... but I am not sure

I can do it.

 

If I cant bring myself to bid 3D, I bid 5D, 4D

should be forcing.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[brianshark]

I'll say my bit with 3♦ and leave it at that. If they compete to 4♣ and partner doesn't bid over them, neither will I.

[Fluffy]

The law says 4♦! don't go against the law or you will go to jail!

[Guest Jlall]

The law says 4♦! don't go against the law or you will go to jail!

hahaha good one.

 

Seriously gotta give this a "3D WTP"

[helene_t]

3♦ constructive or purely competitive? Since Justin say "wtp" I suppose the latter.

[jdonn]

3♦, they probably wont have game so anything else is just plain excessive. I would rather go to jail a 3♦ bidder than have to live as a free man for bidding a silly 4♦.

[Cascade]

3♦ competitive in diamonds.

 

I am curious to know what the 4♦ bidders think that shows. Ok I know that Fluffy thinks it is just a "law" bid.

 

I have no idea how partner is supposed to know what to do over that if your bid might be based on a weak (hcp) hand or a stronger (hcp) hand.

 

I would play 4♦ as a slammish distributional hand inviting a cue-bid.

[skjaeran]

3♦, wtp?

Selling out to 4♣.

[kgr]

3♦.

If opps bid to 4♣ then I pass.

If opps bid to 5♣ then I will probably bid 5♦ at these colors.

...How stupid is that?

[jtfanclub]

Partner gave me a freakin' two diamond bid in competition. Two diamonds! In competition! That bid requires four diamonds and 13 cards, +/- 1.

 

The LAW says keep bidding. And I have a corollary to that law, which says....

 

-If you have a massive fit, and you dont have the points to go on, then they also have a massive or double fit, and they do have the points to go on.

 

At that rule says: pass. Three diamonds...

 

-Isn't going to make.

-Is going to tell them about their fit.

-Is going to make it easier for them to find game.

 

Let's say overcaller has, oh...

 

AJ

AJx

xxx

KJTxx

 

Some people wouldn't consider it worth a 2♣ overcall. Clear pass of partner's 3♣ bid.

 

And yet...if you bid 3♦, a lot of good thing can happen for them. You've guaranteed diamond shortness in his partner's hand, so those diamonds don't look quite so rotten any more. Some people would now find another bid over 3♦. A lot of people would pass now but bid 5♣ if their partner bid 4, something that can't happen if you pass 3 clubs.

 

If you pass 3 clubs, that's where I expect them to play it. With my one trick pile of garbage, that sounds good to me. 3♦ is probably -100, 3 or 4 clubs is probably -150, who cares? Make the call that's the least likely to be -600.

 

Yeah, I know, not a popular call.

[cherdano]

I don't think the 2♦ bid precludes partner from having values, not even in clubs. If they get pushed into a game they wouldn't otherwise bid, who says they are going to make with the bad trump split?

[inquiry]

3♦'s... that is enough

[jdonn]

Three diamonds...

 

-Isn't going to make.

-Is going to tell them about their fit.

-Is going to make it easier for them to find game.

- And why the heck not?

- Call me crazy, but they already found it!

- Yes much easier when they no longer have a 3♦ bid. And why should they have game anyway, we have an opener and partner has enough to raise, we could easily even own the hand.

[Impact]

Given your ownership of the majorQ, any card(s) partner has except DQJ must be potential defensive trick(s).

 

OTOH you obviously have too many top controls missing to make game in D a decent proposition.

 

3D must have reasonable prospects and you don't want to give them the option of getting to 3NT if it is on....

 

3D wtp let them have 4C but if partner (!!) were to bid 4D I would have a lot of difficulty working out his hand ...

 

regards

[jtfanclub]

Three diamonds...

 

-Isn't going to make.

-Is going to tell them about their fit.

-Is going to make it easier for them to find game.

- And why the heck not?

- Call me crazy, but they already found it!

- Yes much easier when they no longer have a 3♦ bid. And why should they have game anyway, we have an opener and partner has enough to raise, we could easily even own the hand.

Why?

 

Because I think partner has 5-9 hcp. And I think that two of those hcp are likely to be the queen of diamonds, and that (depending on the jack of diamonds) would make it 2-7 hcp outside of diamonds. Unless one of those clubs is an ace and they lead a minor suit, I think it's likely that any club honors will be useless on offense- it's not like I can lead to them. It also makes me nervous that partner didn't double: either he doesn't have a 4 card major, or he was too weak to make a call.

 

If he has a hand like xxx xx QJxx Kxxx, which I consider typical, we're down 1. Of course, they're likely to make 5♣, so it's not like 3♦ is a horrible place to be. On the other hand, he could have Kxx xx QJxx Kxxx, which would be a max, but then they bid 4♣ and make it, so what have we accomplished?

 

They know they have a fit, but they don't know how large a fit it is. They certainly don't know that three small diamonds is not two or three losers. I hope you're not arguing that 3♦ doesn't convey any useful information to them.

 

Normally, opener vs. raise, I wouldn't be worried about a game. In this case, we have 10 or 11 diamonds and three controls, which I'm not so sure will be worth even one defensive trick. Outside of the diamond suit, well, we've got no sure tricks or controls and we're the opener. Maybe you have a different range for 2♦ there than I do, but the way I play it we cannot own the hand.

 

I think the hands where 4♣ goes down for them are...rather unlikely. Yes, partner might have JT987 of clubs and 8 points in the majors, but it's not something I'd like to gamble on. I also think it's unlikely that we'll buy the hand in 3♦. So I don't think the 3♦ passing 4♣ accomplishes a big deal, if they stop at 4♣.

 

I think they're much more likely to go to game if I bid 3♦. If you think the bad club split will keep them from making it, and you're bidding 3♦ to try to get them to bid game, well, I can certainly accept that. Maybe that's right.

 

But if you're thinking of 3♦ as a wtp bid without considering where the auction may go next, well, I beg that you reconsider. Yeah, I know you did, but that was a generic 'you' this time. :)

[gwnn]

So a typical hand has no help in the majors and club wastage. How did you come up with that?

[matmat]

So a typical hand has no help in the majors and club wastage. How did you come up with that?

magic

[jdonn]

Because I think partner has 5-9 hcp.  And I think that two of those hcp are likely to be the queen of diamonds, and that (depending on the jack of diamonds) would make it 2-7 hcp outside of diamonds.

This is more conjecture than logic. He has 2-7 hcp outside of diamonds, unless he doesn't have the queen of diamonds after all. Which tells us...nothing useful.

 

It also makes me nervous that partner didn't double: either he doesn't have a 4 card major, or he was too weak to make a call.

He probably has no four card major, and I don't see why that information would make you nervous.

 

If he has a hand like  xxx xx QJxx Kxxx, which I consider typical, we're down 1.  Of course, they're likely to make 5♣, so it's not like 3♦ is a horrible place to be.

I don't consider a minimum with 100% of it's values wasted on offense typical. Nor do I see it makes much difference, as one of the opponents already incorporated diamond shortness into his evaluation.

 

On the other hand, he could have Kxx xx QJxx Kxxx, which would be a max, but then they bid 4♣ and make it, so what have we accomplished?

That it is very likely they won't bid it! People don't just merrily compete to the 4 level in minors all the time. You are not going to 3 with six diamonds and a club void, but they are going to 4 with worse?

 

I hope you're not arguing that 3♦ doesn't convey any useful information to them.

You are correct, I did not make that argument. I will say it conveys very little reliable information of any kind. There are many hands with five or even four diamonds where I compete to 3 here.

 

Maybe you have a different range for 2♦ there than I do, but the way I play it we cannot own the hand.

We have the higher suit. If the strength is equally split or nearly so, we own the hand. (11+9)/40 = ....

 

I think the hands where 4♣ goes down for them are...rather unlikely.

So you use this logic to let them play 3♣?

 

I also think it's unlikely that we'll buy the hand in 3♦.

That is where you are wrong.

 

if you're thinking of 3♦ as a wtp bid without considering where the auction may go next, well, I beg that you reconsider.

I considered it very carefully! And too often it is going to 3♦ p p p to seriously consider anything else.

[jtfanclub]

So a typical hand has no help in the majors and club wastage. How did you come up with that?

Because if partner has a 4 card major any any serious points I'd expect an X, not a 2♦ call, even with 4 diamonds.

 

Because if he has 4 clubs and 3 hearts, and if there are 4 outstanding club honors and 3 outstanding heart honors, he's more likely to have club honors than heart ones. Not sure why it matters: xx Kxx QJxx xxxx they make 5 clubs, and you're hoping to buy it for 3♦?

 

As for keeping them from finding 3NT, I don't get it. Do people actually bid 2♦ with three? If not, then I'll be overjoyed if they bid 3NT. That means if one of them has a diamond stopper, the other one is void. I think the bad club split along with my long diamonds will kill 3NT, even when 5♣ would make.

[jtfanclub]

This is more conjecture than logic. He has 2-7 hcp outside of diamonds, unless he doesn't have the queen of diamonds after all. Which tells us...nothing useful.

 

Well, he's 4/7 to have the Queen of diamonds, 4/7 to have the Jack of diamonds, and not even half of those odds to have any other honor. And that's assuming he has only 4♦.

 

I don't consider a minimum with 100% of it's values wasted on offense typical. Nor do I see it makes much difference, as one of the opponents already incorporated diamond shortness into his evaluation.

 

Or both. Be pretty funny if you passed and they bid too high because they each had a diamond singleton.

 

That it is very likely they won't bid it! People don't just merrily compete to the 4 level in minors all the time. You are not going to 3 with six diamonds and a club void, but they are going to 4 with worse?

 

I'm not at all sure they have worse, but yeah. If neither of you have game, then the lawful thing to do is bid 4♣ and dare you to bid 4♦, right? You may be right, you might buy it in 3. I may be colored by the fact that I've seen our hands, so I know their right bid is 4♣ in almost all situations.

 

You are correct, I did not make that argument. I will say it conveys very little reliable information of any kind. There are many hands with five or even four diamonds where I compete to 3 here.

 

Woof. Well, if the opponents know you bid 3♦ with 4, I stand corrected. I will generally have 5 diamonds and club shortness, or 6 diamonds. If 3♦ doesn't say much about your hand, then I guess the only worry is it gives RHO another call.

 

We have the higher suit. If the strength is equally split or nearly so, we own the hand. (11+9)/40 = ....

 

I used to think of that as owning the hand, I don't any more. Maybe I should go back. The LAWful bid seems to usually be with these sorts of hand for the lower ranking suit to bid over the higher ranking suit, and give the higher ranking suit a guess. Bid 3♥ over 2♠, or 4♣ over 3♦. The higher ranking suit can take it away, but should it?

 

I considered it very carefully!

 

I know, and I'm sorry if I misphrased it to imply otherwise.

 

I don't like it when I get a 'wtp' answer to a question that I think deserves more thought. The problem is that if I simply accept it as '3♦ wtp' then I'm likely to try to apply it in the wrong areas. I'd rather present the argument for what I honestly think is another legitimate bid and watch you destroy it: that's how I learn bridge, and I'm hoping that other people learn more from it too. If they don't, I ought to be paying you- I doubt I'm teaching you anything. You certainly did a good job destroying the pass this time- I'll bid 3♦ with this hand, should it come up.

 

I'll just make one last request- can you make a sample hand which would go:

 

1♦ (4+) (2♣) 2♦ (3♣

3♦

 

with only 4 diamonds? I need to add that to my repertoire.

 

Thanks.

[Cascade]

If he has a hand like xxx xx QJxx Kxxx, which I consider typical, we're down 1.

This is very close to a pass for me.

 

It is very far from typical.

[david_c]

Thanks folks. The actual deal is not exactly what you might be expecting.

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sj98xxxhxdqjxxcjx&w=skhkjtxdxckqxxxxx&e=satxhaxxxdxxcaxxx&s=sqxxhqxxxdakt9xxc]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Yes, RHO has somewhat underbid her hand! I bid 3♦ which gave her another chance. (LHO passed, and presumably would have passed the cold slam in 3♣.) I need to either pass 3♣, or bid 4♦/5♦ which might keep them out, or find the good save over whatever club contract they bid. Are any of these realistic? It was difficult to say when what happened at the table was not really bridge as we know it.

 

This board was a complete disaster for our team of eight. At our table we scored -640 defending 5♣ on a heart lead. Our other NS pair scored -300: well done, that was a good save against 6♣. One opposing NS pair made 4♠; the other was just one off at the 5-level. Ouch! :(