Simple bidding, difficult decision

[Fluffy]

♠AQ106

♥KJ96

♦A

♣A987

 

Match points: Nobody vul, it goes: (Pass) - 3♦ - (Pass)- ??

[ArtK78]

It really depends on your partnership preempting style.

 

With most of my partners, this is a clear pass. Even if partner has KQxxxxx of diamonds, he won't have an outside entry. And if his diamonds are worse, then there is no possible source of 9 tricks at no trump. As for making 11 tricks in diamonds, that would require a perfect fit - something like xx Qxx KQxxxxx x (on a spade finesse for 12 tricks in diamonds assuming 3-2 diamonds and no heart ruff).

 

If your partnership style is to preempt with something like Kx xx KQxxxxx xx, then 3NT is easy.

 

I believe that the percentage call with most partners is pass.

[awm]

3NT requires partner to have running diamonds and a side entry. If partner has that, then 5♦ should have good play also (seven diamonds plus two aces plus partner's entry and at worst one of two finesses for trick eleven). Of course, if partner has no side entry or has non-running diamonds then 3NT is hopeless, but 5♦ still might have some play (give partner Kx xx KJTxxxx xx and you might make 5♦ without ♦Q falling doubleton by guessing hearts).

 

So I think 3NT is pretty clearly wrong, and the decision is really between pass and 5♦. At this point it depends a little on preempting style. To make 5♦ really good we need opener to have KQxxxxx and an additional side card. While I would actually open 3♦ on that hand, I would also open 3♦ without the side card or with the diamond jack instead of queen assuming my spots aren't really headed by the six. So the hands where 5♦ is bad seem to outnumber the hands where it's good, even though I'm actually a fairly conservative preempter in second chair.

 

I'd go with pass, acknowledging that if opener has a maximum we could easily be on for 5♦.

[rogerclee]

3NT, thanks for putting partner in second seat at equal vul.

[mtvesuvius]

3NT... I've gone down 4 before. Of course in 2nd Seat at Equal I expect partner to have a decent hand.

[Phil]

3N is crazy and is playing partner for an entry (which is a total guess) or sleeping defenders. If I were to make any move it would be 5♦, but we are a long way from 11 tricks.

 

I'll take my 110 / 130. On a good day the opponents will balance.

[jdonn]

I'd bid 3NT, which I would be far from surprised to make with just 1 diamond trick.

[mike777]

3nt, guess.

option 2=pass

[Gerben42]

Pass, I don't see much hope in 3NT. I'll be endplayed all the time.

[whereagles]

In a weak field, people will be bidding 3NT, so you might want to try that as well. Maybe pard has a side entry or somefink.

 

In a strong field, you'll probably want to pass.

[JLOL]

3N

[gnasher]

I suppose I shouldn't be horrified by the votes for 3NT, but I am. What are you hoping your partner will have, and how often do you expect him to have it?

[Apollo81]

Pass. I agree with awm's thinking here.

[jdonn]

I think the flaw in not bidding 3NT is assuming your tricks must come from diamonds. Anything LHO leads into us, as well as any outside A K Q J or even T, will add to our likely trick total. I don't worry about myself getting endplayed as much as the opponents getting endplayed every time they are on lead.

[karlson]

5♦ for me. I don't see why 2nd red preempts should have more outside stuff, for me they are just more pure.

 

I don't really understand how we're going to make this without the diamonds on hands where we can't also make 5♦. Example hands anyone?

[gnasher]

Example hands anyone?

Me too.

[jdonn]

Say partner has x Qx KQTxxxx Jxx. Lho leads a spade to the jack and queen. We play the ace of diamonds and jack of hearts, and supposing we are lucky enough to find LHO with the ace. He ducks and we play another which he wins. Maybe if I'm really in the zone then diamonds didn't break and 5♦ has even less chance, Etc etc etc.

 

9x x KQJxxxx JTx. Lho leads a spade, the 9 holds and we run a club. Etc etc etc.

 

3NT is not cold on layouts like these, but it has very decent odds. Even when there is a good switch to make (such as diamonds in the second example) they may not find it. Or maybe when there is a bad switch to make, such as a heart from Qx, they find that. And of course partner could simply have an entry as well, or a bad diamond suit with more outside. Say Jx Qxx QJTxxxx K we may just scramble 9 tricks from every suit. There are just so many possible ways to make. Why give up on a game that could make?

[karlson]

Say partner has x Qx KQTxxxx Jxx. Lho leads a spade to the jack and queen. We play the ace of diamonds and jack of hearts, and supposing we are lucky enough to find LHO with the ace. He ducks and we play another which he wins. Maybe if I'm really in the zone then diamonds didn't break and 5♦ has even less chance, Etc etc etc.

 

So now you're up to 7 tricks. They exit a heart and you're going to need some more luck even after this.

 

9x x KQJxxxx JTx. Lho leads a spade, the 9 holds and we run a club. Etc etc etc.

 

You can't get back to run the club again, and you're going to need at least 1 heart trick, playing them from your hand. Meanwhile 5♦ is excellent (hook the spade if they lead that, otherwise double hook clubs).

 

Say Jx Qxx QJTxxxx K we may just scramble 9 tricks from every suit.

 

Maybe, but 5♦ is completely cold.

[jdonn]

On the first, I was done analyzing because it's very complicated and too many possible permutations, but I was certainly not done setting up tricks...

 

The second I think you have misanalyzed. A club lead against 5♦ leads to a very likely ruff by the opponents regardless of the club honors. In fact you would be very likely to go down on a club lead with the spade king, spade jack, heart ace, heart queen, heart ten, club king, and club queen all onside!

 

The third you are right 5♦ is very good (although he could also have worse diamonds depending who you are....). Anyway all that shows is my limitations in creating example hands very quickly at work. My point is that you don't need to run diamonds to make 3NT. Notice that on none of those hands did I give partner running diamonds with an entry, nor did I ever give him much shape.

 

But bidding 5♦ does have a lot to recommend it, but I think it's living in a perfect world where partner has KQJTxxx of diamonds and nothing outside every hand. I think passing is just way too pessimistic.

[karlson]

It's true, if they lead a stiff club on the second one against 5♦ and I don't read the position, I will go down.

 

I think the best argument for 3n is what you're alluding to later -- partner might have an entry and solid diamonds, and you'll score 630 or 660. At imps, I still think that 5♦ must be much better.

[jdonn]

It's true, if they lead a stiff club on the second one against 5♦ and I don't read the position, I will go down.

Not to nitpick something minor, but a stiff club? How about a club from any holding at all that is 1 2 4 5 or 6 cards long?

[MarkDean]

Say partner has x Qx KQTxxxx Jxx. Lho leads a spade to the jack and queen. We play the ace of diamonds and jack of hearts, and supposing we are lucky enough to find LHO with the ace. He ducks and we play another which he wins. Maybe if I'm really in the zone then diamonds didn't break and 5♦ has even less chance, Etc etc etc.

Why not just play small toward the queen and cash your diamonds?

[Fluffy]

One hand probes nothing, but this time partner held:

 

♠xx

♥xx

♦KQJ109x

♣KJx

 

Its more like a style issue. But if you are on the same wavelenght than me you should probably bid 3NT when partner opened at equal in second position.

 

Maybe it also makes a difference whenever you have weak 2♦ avaible or not.

 

5♦ didn't even make when ♠K, ♥AQ, ♣Q were all offside.

[whereagles]

"probes"? you mean, "proves" :)