Bid These Two

[mike777]

I guess reading these posts a weak vul 2d bid was not an option.

[jdonn]

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

I'm 26 and you're right I wouldn't pass, as long as I have a 2♦ opener available. If not, I pass when vul and it's not close.

[kenrexford]

Hmmmm.

 

3♥ = either hearts and forcing or a hesitant 3NT try (honor dependent).

 

If Opener has heart support but does not have appropriate diamond honors, he bids 4♦, or possibly a natural 4♣.

 

If Opener has heart support and appropriate diamond honors, he bids 3NT.

 

If Opener bids 3♠, then, he lacks heart support but may or may not have appropriate diamond honors. When Responder bids 3NT, he passes with appropriate honors or converts without appropriate honors.

 

This scheme does not solve the problem of when Responder needs no appropriate diamond honors but has hearts. So what? Bid 3NT with that hand. Let 'em find the lead.

[gnasher]

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).

We're not now arguing about whether you (Justin) should bid 3NT - I agree that it depends on what you expect from a preempt, and what you expect seems to differ markedly from my expectation.

My comments about what hands would open 3♦ were about what I expect from someone I play face-to-face bridge with, not about what I think you should expect. That was what I meant by "inside the asylum", but perhaps that wasn't clear.

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.

Now this is where we do disagree. It isn't sufficient to think you'll make 3NT "more often than I will go down", if going down involves going several down.

Suppose that 3NT will make exactly 50% of the time, and go four down 50% of the time, and that 3♦ will always make 110. Your expectation from bidding 3NT is:

  3NT making: 0.5 x +10

  3NT down 4: 0.5 x -11

So, the question of how many 3NT will go down when it does fail is indeed relevant on this type of hand.

Again, the likelihood that you'll go down four (or five) on this hand depends on the likelihood that partner's preempt contains side values. So, it might be more of a concern for me than for you, but I reject the suggestion that it's silly.

[Guest Jlall]

Gnasher, saying "Why would you bid game, when you might go down several hundred" is the same as me saying "Why would you pass 3D when you might make a game?"

 

Would you think the 2nd question is stupid? Because it is the same as the first question, except in reverse. They are both silly questions. I know you want to pass 3D because you might go down a lot in 3N and the penalty for that is large, just like it should be obvious that the reason I am bidding game is because I think I will make game a lot, and there is a bonus for game. I stick with the idea that it is a silly question. I mean really, think about it lol.

 

I did not say that the amount you go down is irrelevant, I said that your question is silly. Are you going to stick your head in the sand and pretend you do not know there is also an upside to bidding game?

[gnasher]

Not only do I accept that there is an upside to bidding game, I have also quantified it, as well as the downside to going off in game.

 

 

Let's go back to my actual words:

 

"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?"

 

You may not accept my premise that on this hand game needs both the right cards and something good to happen. However, given this premise, the question was perfectly reasonable.

 

Edit: Perhaps I should say that this was intended as rhetorical. The intent of my words was "It is wrong to 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."

 

 

And here is your original response:

 

"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!"

 

My point was that on hands where 3NT goes several down, the "even more HUNDRED" may, in fact, be "fewer hundred".

Edited July 8, 2008 by gnasher

[benlessard]

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?

1-Because for me a vulnerable preempt tend to show 7 tricks. The only hands where im willing to risk -800,-1100 are hands where my suit is pure (they are less likely to double) and hands with clubs (because 2C isnt available) . So KQT9876 and nothing else doesnt qualify for a red 3D.

 

2nd we dont open light.

 

xx,x,KQJTxxx,Axx is a clearcut 3D for us.

 

3rd i agree that these are the kind of hands where that if the D dont run you are in bad shapes. But partner rate to have 7D and a entry more often that 8 diamonds and no entry. Remove the J of D and it a whole different story.

 

PS in a precision scheme we play that 2Nt show a bad preempt and 3m show a good preempt. When we are red 2Nt show an entryless preempt and 3m show almost an opening hands, Meckwell used to play something similar but they switch to 2Nt 20-21. I prefer this then 2Nt showing both m 5-11