Bid These Two

[rogerclee]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=skj984hak53dj5ca4&s=s2h9dkqt432cqj762]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

How would you bid these two?

[skjaeran]

1♠ - 1NT

2♦ - pass (2♦ = transfer)

 

Next hand! :(

[gnasher]

1♠-1NT

2♥-3♦

(not invitational, because I play 1♠-3♦ as an invitational one-suiter)

[Guest Jlall]

I'd probably open 3D and get to 3N. If I passed, I would respond 2D to the 1S opener, then 3C over 2H from partner and get to 3N.

 

What can I say, I guess I overbid!

[gnasher]

I hadn't noticed that South was dealer - just assumed Skaeran had the auction starting in the right place.

 

I don't mind a 3♦ opening as South, but I wouldn't respond to it with the North hand. From North's point of view, 3NT needs either South's diamonds to play for no loser; or one-loser diamonds, an entry and, probably, a second club stop.

[jdonn]

I'm ashamed to admit my auction, but I'm almost sure I would get to 3NT.

[skjaeran]

I hadn't noticed that South was dealer - just assumed Skaeran had the auction starting in the right place.

 

I don't mind a 3♦ opening as South, but I wouldn't respond to it with the North hand. From North's point of view, 3NT needs either South's diamonds to play for no loser; or one-loser diamonds, an entry and, probably, a second club stop.

Sorry, forgot to put in an initial pass.

[han]

An initial pass?

[pclayton]

I'd probably open 3D and get to 3N. If I passed, I would respond 2D to the 1S opener, then 3C over 2H from partner and get to 3N.

 

What can I say, I guess I overbid!

I admit it wouldn't occur to me to bid 3N over 3♦. You need a solid suit, AK-7th and a break or a spade card to roll it.

 

The South hand can be passed or opened 2♦, 2N (minors) or 3♦. 3N would probably be reached after a pass or maybe 2♦. Otherwise we'll subside in 3♣ or 3♦.

[Guest Jlall]

I'd probably open 3D and get to 3N. If I passed, I would respond 2D to the 1S opener, then 3C over 2H from partner and get to 3N.

 

What can I say, I guess I overbid!

I admit it wouldn't occur to me to bid 3N over 3♦. You need a solid suit, AK-7th and a break or a spade card to roll it.

 

The South hand can be passed or opened 2♦, 2N (minors) or 3♦. 3N would probably be reached after a pass or maybe 2♦. Otherwise we'll subside in 3♣ or 3♦.

I guess my vul 3D openers are better than everyones (what?!) but I would not think AQxxxxx or AKxxxxx or KQxxxxx + a card (like a queen) is too much to ask for. On a good day partner might even have the DT! They don't always lead a club. It would really not occur to me to pass a vul 3D opener with this hand but I am not surprised gnasher would (since he's crazy), but I am kind of surprised you would since I thought you were a fairly down the middle preemptor.

[benlessard]

Impossible for me to avoid 3Nt.

[gnasher]

At least I'm consistent in my insanity. Bowles playing with Bowles (a terrifying concept) bids 3♦-pass for +130. Lall playing with Lall bids 3♦-3NT for -300. We win 8 IMPs, to go with the half a board I picked up from you when I bid and made 3NT in the BAM.

 

Hands like AKxxxxx, AQxxxxx and KQxxxxx + a side card are at one end of a scale, and none of them make game solid. Further along the same scale is x x KQ10xxx QJxxx, as well as the prototypical KQ10xxxx without a side card. Why would you bid a game that needs both partner to have the right cards and something good to happen, and will cost several hundred when it's wrong?

[Guest Jlall]

At least I'm consistent in my insanity.  Bowles playing with Bowles (a terrifying concept) bids 3♦-pass for +130.  Lall playing with Lall bids 3♦-3NT for -300.  We win 8 IMPs, to go with the half a board I picked up from you when I bid and made 3NT in the BAM.

You're just that much better than me dude!

 

Why is KQTxxxx prototypical but AQ/AK are not? KQTxxxx is a very weak 3D bid, and definitely on the end of the scale. KQTxxxx will usually contain something else. Most people would not consider KQTxxxx and out a 3D bid if it was 7222, and even fewer would consider it a 3D bid without the ten. 6-5 in the minors is probably not a very common hand for a 3D opener. AQ can contain something else. Heck AK can contain another queen. AQ and AK don't even need the ten of diamonds, making them even more likely than KQ. To say KQTxxxx and out is prototypical is really misleading.

 

Why would you bid a game that needs both partner to have the right cards and something good to happen, and will cost several hundred when it's wrong?

 

Lol, are you serious? Oh no you might lose several HUNDRED?!?!??! Good thing there is this bonus where you win even more HUNDRED for making a contract like 3NT! People often bid aggressively to this contract "three notrump" in search of such a lucrative bonus, especially when the scoring is what is commonly known as "imps."

[Guest Jlall]

Oh and btw, maybe I bid so much because there is no way I expect -300 to be the average result on this hand. I could even see making it if they lead spades. My opponents do not always make the best possible lead/defense after 3D p 3N.

[andy_h]

3♦-3♠-4♣-5♦

:rolleyes:

[skjaeran]

An initial pass?

Sure I pass, the only viable alternative would be a 1♦ opening, but even I feel this is just too light (on defencive values).

 

I'd never open 3♦ on this - if partner has the goodies, we might easily have a slam (in any minor) and miss it after preempting.

[Fluffy]

I follow gnasher's bidding, but I am not enterelly sure that North would pass over 3♦, not sure how to take the fact that south had not opened 3♦ but wants to play them now.

[gnasher]

Why is KQTxxxx prototypical but AQ/AK are not? KQTxxxx is a very weak 3D bid, and definitely on the end of the scale. KQTxxxx will usually contain something else. Most people would not consider KQTxxxx and out a 3D bid if it was 7222, and even fewer would consider it a 3D bid without the ten. 6-5 in the minors is probably not a very common hand for a 3D opener. AQ can contain something else. Heck AK can contain another queen. AQ and AK don't even need the ten of diamonds, making them even more likely than KQ. To say KQTxxxx and out is prototypical is really misleading.

Perhaps this is just an inside-the-asylum outside-the-asylum difference. I don't know anyone under the age of 60 who'd pass xx xx KQ10xxxx xx in first seat at game all. x xx K109xxxx xxx would be a preempt for most of the people I play with. And x xx AKxxxxx Qxx would be a 1♦ opener.

Lol, are you serious? Oh no you might lose several HUNDRED?!?!??! Good thing there is this bonus where you win even more HUNDRED for making a contract like 3NT! People often bid aggressively to this contract "three notrump" in search of such a lucrative bonus, especially when the scoring is what is commonly known as "imps."

The IMP scale works in both directions. The argument that you should bid a game if it's a bit less than 50% only applies if you expect to go down only one when you don't make.

 

Opposite xx xx AQ10xxxx xx, assuming a club lead and good defence thereafter, I think 3NT is just good enough in practice:

K/Kx/Kxx onside: 45% of +11

Kxx/Kxxx offside and you don't get a spade trick: 11.5% of -11

Kxx/Kxxx offside and you get a spade trick: 11.5% of -10

K/Kx offside and ♠AQ wrong: 8% of -10

K/Kx offside and one of ♠AQ right (assuming you'd guess correctly if forced to do so): 24% of -8

 

I make that an expectation of -0.185 IMPs for bidding 3NT. However, it's better than that because they might lead something else or slop an undertrick, so I'd want to be in 3NT.

 

Opposite xx xx KQ10xxxx xx, with any lead:

Stiff ace: 12.5% of +11

Other layouts and you get a spade trick: say 50% of -11

Other layouts and you don't get a spade trick: 37.5% of -12

 

That's an expectation of -8.6 IMPs. Even allowing for defensive errors, 3NT is likely to be a disaster.

 

In my partnerships, these two hands are equally likely, and a much stronger hand isn't, so a pass of 3♦ would be clearcut. I agree, though, that if most hands with KQ10xxxx don't open 3♦, 3NT is more attractive.

[benlessard]

After a 3D preempt north as an clear cut and obvious 3Nt.

[gnasher]

After a 3D preempt north as an clear cut and obvious 3Nt.

The level of detail in that analysis isn't quite up to your usual standards.

 

Do you consider 3NT obvious because:

 

- Your partners don't open 3♦ with an aceless diamond suit and no side card , or

- They do, but they also open 3♦ on more suitable hands often enough to make up for it, or

- You think my analysis of what will happen to 3NT opposite typical 3♦ openers is flawed, or

- You use a different IMP scale?

[Guest Jlall]

I don't know anyone under the age of 60 who'd pass xx xx KQ10xxxx xx in first seat at game all.

I don't think I ever suggested passing. I guess everyone you know plays multi though. To me the notion of KT9xxxx and out being a vul 3D bid and AKxxxxx and Qxx being a 1D bid is not a standard way of playing bridge.

 

I am not sure what we are arguing about? I said from the beginning "I am not surprised gnasher thinks this is a pass of a 3D bid" (implied: given your standards for 3D bids).

 

I thought your quesiton of "why would you bid game when you might go down hundreds!" was really silly, we might also win hundreds. I obviously think I will make 3N more often than I will go down. All of the hands you have suggested so far have had no outside card anywhere. To me that is not a realistic sample. I could just as easily suggest xx xx KQTxxxx Kx for partner and show that 3N is 100 %, and not bidding 3N is a complete catastrophe.

[Cascade]

3♦-3♠-4♣-5♦

:)

Doesn't going past 3NT normally show a fit for partner's suit?

[Cascade]

I don't know anyone under the age of 60 who'd pass xx xx KQ10xxxx xx in first seat at game all.

That doesn't look like a vulnerable pre-empt to me.

 

Last time I checked I didn't think I was over 60.

 

I don't think I am a particularly conservative pre-empter.

[Cascade]

At least I'm consistent in my insanity.  Bowles playing with Bowles (a terrifying concept) bids 3♦-pass for +130.  Lall playing with Lall bids 3♦-3NT for -300.  We win 8 IMPs, to go with the half a board I picked up from you when I bid and made 3NT in the BAM.

You're just that much better than me dude!

Don't worry Justin its only 8 IMPs a board.

 

You can make it up with a bit of practice :)

[655321]

If my partner opened 3♦ I would bid 3NT as North. I agree it does depend on what you expect for a vulnerable preempt, my vul preempts (while not too crazy) are probably closer to the gnasher school than the jlall school.

 

I don't much like a 3♠ bid as North - if the hand is good enough to do something other than pass, I think 3NT is right.