Responding with "near" invitational strength?

[fred]

Sorry Josh - I clicked "Edit" instead of "Quote" by mistake (being an admin I can do that) and made a mess of your previous post.

 

I have deleted that post and reposted under my ID, but your original post has been lost (though I quoted much of it).

 

Sorry again.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

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.

 

Two comments on that. One is that I think "almost always" is a huge exageration,

Maybe I was exaggerating, but I think your "huge" is an exaggeration too. Also, As mikeh pointed out, I was arguably being charitable with my "upwards of 70%" :P

 

since a substantial minority of the time partner is 6-4.

 

Sure, but conventional wisdom is that partner should have substantial extra strength to bid that way with 6-4 so he often won't be passing 2D when he has that pattern (and I was only talking about hands when partner Passes 2D).

 

So I don't think "substantial" is accurate. It is certainly much more likely that partner has a minimum 5-5 hand when he Passes 2D - your super-false preference will not look very good in that case (and could be super-bad if partner has weak diamonds, if he loses trump control, or if the defenders are able to get club ruffs).

 

My other point is that your 'wrong' contract is a perfectly fine contract that I would expect to make. It's not like choosing a bad contract over a good contract, it's choosing a good contract over a better contract.

 

Not sure I agree with your judgment here - IMO 3C versus 2D could easily be a good contract over a bad contract (or a good contract over a ridiculous contract if partner can be 1444 or 4-5 in the minors).

 

But even if both 2D and 3C rate to make, haven't you ever lost a match by 1 IMP?

 

(also I somewhat regret advocating it in the BI forum to begin with, which I didn't realize I had done)

 

I usually don't notice such things either, but in this case I did. That is why I decide to weigh in - I didn't think it was a good thing for the B/Is out there being exposed to several strong players advocating what I thought was a really strange bid in a relatively straightforward and common situation.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Am I losing my mind, or did my entire post which Justin replied to and Fred quoted from vanish? Then again maybe that isn't the worst thing :)

 

Oh sorry I see your post before the last one Fred, np. I wish I could do that to more of my posts!

[JLOGIC]

Fred censoring those who disagree with him obv :)

 

Jdonn I would usually be 3-4 to bid 2D then 3C I think.

[jdonn]

Agree about 3-4, and I would also add that I think it shows essentially this exact strength. If you were stronger with that shape you'd bid 3♣ or 3♦ over 2♣, if you were weaker you would pass 2♣.