Responding with "near" invitational strength?

[fuburules3]

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sk10xxxhxxdjxca10xx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

P 1♦ P 1♠

P 2♣ P ?[/hv]

 

In auction like this where opener could have extras with my normal partners, I don't have any systematic way to bid except to try to keep auction open. What do you bid here? If you pass, how much stronger would you have to be to bid?

[gwnn]

3♣, barely.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

It is either Pass or 3C, anything else is ???.

 

I guess, I would pass, my regular p would bid 3C.

 

With kind regular

Marlowe

[nigel_k]

2♦. Keeps the auction open without promising more than I have.

 

It will sometimes fail when we would have been allowed to play 2♣ making, but also will sometimes lead to us getting to play 3♣ when partner would not pass if I bid it directly. Obviously if partner bids on freely then I have extras and can cooperate.

[aguahombre]

2♦. Keeps the auction open without promising more than I have.

Yes it keeps the auction open. But it is not forcing, misstates which minor you prefer, and doesn't suggest near invitational values. Other than that, it is fine.

 

I have to make a false preference with 2-3 in the minors; can't see why I should do it with 2-4.

[Gerben42]

3♣ without alternatives really. Since you would pass 2♣ with Jxxxx / xx / Jx / ATxx, that isn't THAT much a range anyway.

[awm]

I like 2♦, but this depends a lot on partnership style and form of scoring.

 

At MP, I would pass 2♣. This is the percentage action. Bidding 2♦ will frequently lead you to play a worse partial than 2♣, and raising will both frequently reach a worse partial and occasionally get you overboard to a poor game.

 

If partner is one of these jokers who bids like this with 4♦/5♣, then I would raise clubs or pass. Correcting to diamonds could reach a 4-2 fit which is probably a huge disaster even at IMPs.

 

However, assuming partner has promised 5+♦ and 4+♣ (normally) and it's IMP scoring, the 2♦ call keeps the auction alive without promising more than I have. While 2♦ is often a worse partial than playing in clubs, I expect to make it most of the time (and I don't care if it's +90 instead of +110 at IMPs, really).

[jdonn]

I also like pass at mps and 2♦ at imps.

 

2 of aguahombre's 3 objections to 2♦ make no sense to me. I understand that I'm mistating which minor I prefer. But 2♦ being non-forcing is a plus rather than a minus, and it in fact suggests exactly the values I have.

[aguahombre]

If partner is one of these jokers who bids like this with 4♦/5♣, then I would raise clubs or pass. Correcting to diamonds could reach a 4-2 fit which is probably a huge disaster even at IMPs.

Being one of those jokers, and my partner being another one of those jokers, I agree.

[mcphee]

Why some prefer to not raise is to me odd. Basically 3C delivers in the 8-11 range, and while I sit near the bottom of that range I hold an A along with Jx of D (a tad shabby) and what might be a non working K (might be non working). If your partners are in the habit of opening the bidding because it is their turn with weakish minor suited hands passing is possible. On the other side of the coin if your partners are the sort who avoid opening poor minor suited hands you might have a game. Being from the camp that does not open shitty minor suited hands I raise, because it is what I have.

[Free]

If partner is one of these jokers who bids like this with 4♦/5♣, then I would raise clubs or pass. Correcting to diamonds could reach a 4-2 fit which is probably a huge disaster even at IMPs.

We joke systemically, but because of this we play 2♦ F1. It will sometimes lose, but it rarely does (hasn't come up yet) and gets us to the best fit and correct level most of the time.

[neilkaz]

To me, this is just barely enough to raise to 3♣. A 2♦ false preference is a slightly better description of my values, but I fear it will too often result in playing in the wrong minor suit.

[billw55]

2♦. Keeps the auction open without promising more than I have.

But 2♦ being non-forcing is a plus rather than a minus, and it in fact suggests exactly the values I have.

A 2♦ false preference is a slightly better description of my values

Wow I have a lot to learn about bridge.

 

These comments make no sense to me. I would bid 2♦ with almost any old pile of crap that has equal length in the minors (or longer diamonds). After partner's 2♣, my hand is so much better than that. How can 2♦ possibly be a good description of my values? I often use SJ Simon's test: how much worse could this hand be? I think it could be far worse and bid 2♦.

 

When I read the OP I thought I was about to see a raft of "3♣ wtp?". In fact I would rather pass than bid 2♦, which seems a favorite to pass out and get a strange look from across the table when I lay this down.

 

Back to class for me I guess.

[fuburules3]

Thanks for all the replies.

 

What actually happened was I bid 2♦ and partner had a minimum 1444, so we ended up playing in the inferior 4-2 fit (fortunately it made). The reason I asked is because it was in a BBO ACBL online tourney and we were only pair playing 2♦, so I wanted to know if I was absolutely crazy to bid like that.

 

To the people raising to 3 clubs, you normally play a raise here is a "good" 8 to "bad" 12? It just seems that if I raise with this hand, my range is very wide and we could play a lot of hopeless games. On the other hand, playing 2 diamonds on the 4-2 fit is obviously not ideal either.

[fred]

Back to class for me I guess.

Me too - the concept of bidding 2D with this hand (or with just about any hand with 2 diamonds and 4 clubs) strikes me as extremely bizarre.

 

And no, I am not one of those jokers (not my word!) who opens 1D with 4-5 in the minors (though I might rebid 1NT instead of 2C with a soft 2254 hand and with some 1444s - I suppose these factors have an impact on this problem as well).

 

I agree with those who think that, at MPs at least, this is a relatively close 2-horse race between Pass and 3C. I prefer 3C even at MPs, but I don't feel strongly about it. I think 3C is clear at IMPs.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[gwnn]

ha!

[JLOGIC]

3C at imps and pass at MP. I feel about equally strongly about passing at MP as I do about bidding at imps though.

[awm]

My view on this hand is that if I raise to 3♣, I expect partner to try 3NT with a 2254 or 1354 hand of 14-18 hcp including a heart stopper. Otherwise with 14-18 hcp I'd expect at minimum some try for 3NT (possibly subsiding in 4♣ when we deny the heart control if at the bottom end of this range).

 

Looking at our hand, I'd expect to reach an awful lot of lousy games this way. This is especially true at MP scoring (where <50% is a bad game) but likely applies at IMPs as well (no reason 22-24 high with a 4-4 club fit is making 3NT as far as I can tell, and partner will push for game on some good 13-bad 14 hands he might not push on at MP).

 

If your expectations are different please say so... but I wonder how you will reach your good 15-opposite-10 and 14-opposite-11 games if the 3♣ raise shows a lot less for you than it does for me (unless you game force those 10 and 11-point hands with this shape which seems equally as bad).

[nigel_k]

I'm not yet convinced of the merit of 3♣.

 

This is not a particularly good hand for NT and if we bid 3♣ partner will bid on with any 2254 or 1354 shape including a heart stop and, say, 14 or more HCP, e.g.

 

x

AQx

Kxxxx

KQxx

 

Why do I have to end up in a silly 3NT on such a normal pair of hands? You could add ♦Q to the above and 3NT is still marginal, or you could add other cards instead where 3NT is still hopeless. In fact, if you add enough for 3NT to be good, the hand will be one that would probably act over 2♦.

 

3♣ is only a good expression of our values if we are going to play in clubs or spades and if we have game in either of those, partner will definitely bid again.

 

In fact, I'm more convinced of 2♦ now than I was before.

 

I respond light but I don't agree with the 'how much worse could I be' test because the really bad hands are less likely than the normal ones. It's a better policy for both players to evaluate with reference to a 'normal' minimum response and accept you'll sometimes overbid when responder is really weak.

[fred]

Nigel - try thinking about it this way:

 

If you bid 2D then partner will Pass most of the time (I would guess upwards of 70%) and, when that happens, you will almost always be in the wrong contract.

 

That in itself is (easily) enough to convince me to reject 2D, but it gets worse: if partner bids again over your 2D, it is not like you can always expect to get to the right spot - for one thing, it is not going to occur to partner that you have 2-4 in the minors no matter what you do. You might be able to suggest 3-4 in the minors, but perhaps not without taking a unilateral action.

 

Of course both Pass and 3C will also lead to the wrong contract fairly often too, but at least with 3C some of these wrong contracts will be games, some of these games will make (through luck and/or misdefense) and you will end up with a nice vulnerable game bonus.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[bluecalm]

I understand people who bid 2♦. I even think it's classic "book" bid.

We don't have enough to invite but we want to keep bidding open in case partner has 16-17hcp.

 

That being said I think Fred's argument is more important. We are just giving away equity by choosing inferior ♦ fit instead of ♣ one.

 

My opinion is that this is another sequence which shows weakness of classical systems. 11-17 range is just too wide here. You will have some awkward guesses and this hand is as close as it gets. It's even worse in "standard" american systems (no gazilli, so no intermediate jumps with 5-5) because partner may have real powerhouse here as 3♣ is game forcing.

 

Note how much better this situation is in precision. We know partner don't have great 15 with 5-5 (cause he would open 1♣ or jump to 3♣ depending on style). We know we have at most 23hcp combined and we have easy pass. Same goes for most 9's hcp hands leaving narrow range for 3♣ (good 10-12).

 

My vote was pass but I forgot about possiblity of strong 5-5 in partner's hand (I am too used to precision or polish club when it's not possible). I now agree that 3♣ at imps is probably better. We will be often in inferior 3NT after that but I hate missing games :P

[JLOGIC]

If your expectations are different please say so...

I would always pass with a 2254 or 1354 14 count in a standard system. If I have 11 and 5 clubs over 2C I will often GF. If I have 11 and 4 clubs I will try to bid 2N if possible. If I have 11 and 4 clubs and no heart stopper then I am stuck bidding 3C and missing game opposite 14 sometimes, but game is not cold with only 1 heart stopper and a 4-4 fit.

 

At some point something has to give when your range is 11-18 or whatever, so I'm not that convinced by the argument that passing with a random 14 will lead us to missing game sometimes. Both players have very wide range and that's a problem with the system, but to me passing with 14 and minimum shape is really normal.

[mikeh]

It wouldn't occur to me to bid 3N over 3♣ with 2=2=5=4 14 counts.

 

So I will miss some games. Big deal. I don't care what method you use...you will either systemically be forced to miss some games or you will be going down in a lot of bad contracts.

 

I would bid 3♣ here at both forms of scoring....happily at imps and unhappily at mps.

 

2♦ didn't even occur to me until I saw several players suggest it...and reading their arguments left me unpersuaded.

 

I actually think that Fred was being generous when he suggested that partner will bid pass 2♦ only 70% of the time. And when he does, you will be lucky to break even compared to bidding 3♣....whereas if he bids....and thus has values for game opposite this hand....good luck finding the optimum contract with any informed input from partner.

 

Sort of: if he passes, we're probably in a bad spot...and if he bids, we're probably going to a bad spot. Hmm....not for me, thanks

[JLOGIC]

Josh I think you are underestimating the chance that 2D goes down with 3C making when partner is passing 2D.

 

I def understand your point that 2D will on average be better than 3N when partner has the range of hands that passes 2D but bids over 3C, but even then it's not like we're gonna be dead in 3N, we don't need it to be that good vul at imps.

 

On the other hand going down in 2D cold for 3C is a bad result and I think it will happen not infrequently, and that is the most common type of hand (partner being weak and passing 2D/3C).

 

Sometimes 3C is down and 2D makes but that's pretty rare. Also, partner with a weakish 6-4 playing in 2D is unlikely, they will probably balance with 2H and be cold for it given that they have ~half the deck and we hav a double fit in the minors.

[jdonn]

I think 2♦ makes most of the time so I guess that's where we differ.

 

Out of curiosity what type of hand would you expect for 2♦ then 3♣ over 2NT by partner?