You Know You're Bidding (title changed)

[bd71]

[hv=pc=n&n=s2hkq83dqj9874c87&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=pp]133|200[/hv]

 

Team game. 2/1, no special gadgets.

 

What's your call?

 

 

EDIT: Yes, there's a mistake in the title...should be "you know you're BIDDING"

[rmnka447]

3 D - you have a 6 loser hand and a passed partner, so you want to be as obstructive as possible when white vs. red.

[mike777]

1d have an easy rebid.

 

I notice I tend to open alot of bids at one level in third seat that the forum opens with a three bid.

[aguahombre]

[EDIT: Yes, there's a mistake in the title...should be "you know you're BIDDING"

I know I am not opening. I might never be in the auction, or I might be able to do something next time around. This will go against all those who must do something at every opportunity.

 

Looks like a hand where my action will propel them to a game they wouldn't normally reach and then guess the adverse distribution to make it.

[bd71]

Looks like a hand where my action will propel them to a game they wouldn't normally reach and then guess the adverse distribution to make it.

 

What specifically about this hand makes you think...:

 

1. ...they wouldn't normally reach a game?

 

2. ...any/all of the proposed bids will help them reach the game?

 

3. ...the hand is such that revealing adverse distribution will be a significant advantage to them?

 

I mean, I can see how all of these are possible drawbacks, but what is it about this specific hand that makes you worry about these more than various countervailing benefits from either a constructive or pre-emptive bidding approach?

[aguahombre]

Nothing particular, just years of bad results when I take flawed actions which partner can't picture and contribute properly, and am short in the top suit. Not really looking for a debate, here; just giving an opinion to the question in the OP.

 

Will let others explain (if they choose) what they like better.

[inquiry]

chapter 3 or 4 of partnership bidding at bridge by Robson/Segal. Partner didn't open, so I am not worried about missing hearts, I want to throw a wrench into their auction. Who know, they may end up in hearts! Of course, it is best if partner read that book as well, and knows that this is the greenest of green positions to allow you to go rouge with your bidding. Because if not, he may hang you out to dry thinking you have a more traditional value for your bid. There are a number of ways he can invite you to take a save at the five level that don't involve raising diamonds directly.

[the hog]

3D for me.

[HighLow21]

I would go 3D if I had the T. But it's too rich for me without it, and with only 8HCP. There could be 3 losers in trumps alone.

[Statto]

I'm happy with 3♦X-5 instead of 6♣/6♠/6NT making for them.

[aguahombre]

I'm happy with 3♦X-5 instead of 6♣/6♠/6NT making for them.

I just changed my mind about seeing what others have to say about their choice.

[BunnyGo]

Give me the A of hearts and take away the QJ of diamonds (but all the same shape) and I'll open 2♥. This hand is 3♦ for me.

[y66]

3D wtp for me. Not worried about missing a fit in hearts.

[r_prah]

Give me the A of hearts and take away the QJ of diamonds (but all the same shape) and I'll open 2♥.

 

Been there, done that :)

 

3♦ here for me as well.

[gwnn]

You're missing 2♥ as an option (I think it makes more sense than 1♥). :)

[mcphee]

I am in gumpers camp and see no reason not to just pass. To be honest I just do not get the big fear players have that they are bidding slam or some game. I welcome them bidding game in H, and maybe partner has 4/5 spades who knows. Who is to say partner has total trash? Can't the values be split with 10 in pards hand, not at all impossible. May be quite true that the opponents have an 8 card S fit, great because the suit ain't breaking.

[Fluffy]

3♦ is really obvious for me

[HighLow21]

Thought about it some more and I seriously think 3D is a mistake here. There are some benefits (namely taking up space and pressuring the opponents) but to me the disadvantages are huge.

 

(1) There is nothing to suggest they will necessarily bid game here. They probably will, but a major suit game is unlikely if partner has some decent spades, which is as likely as not. (Corollary: any major suit game is going to break badly in both majors for them)

(2) Partner could have 2 defensive tricks and enable us to beat a game. We could have as much as 20 HCP combined. This hand might even be passed out!

(3) We might get creamed in 3D doubled without a game on for them. Also, the marked defensive diamond lead might help them assess their hands better.

(4) Opponents tend to bid aggressively Vul at IMPs, and they tend to bid TOO aggressively against preempts. They are more likely to bid and make a thin game by accident because I pushed them so high.

(5) If partner is on lead I don't want to demand a diamond lead. It will probably be a waste of timing. Either major could be better. Heck, clubs could be better.

(6) If a sacrifice is appropriate, partner will misjudge the number of losers we have in diamonds (as well as the length of my diamonds). It may lead to a sacrifice worse than their partscore, game or slam.

 

So my bid is 2D. Pass is next, followed by a psychic 1D or 1H. The one bid you will NOT see me make is 3D.

 

I would be much more likely to bid 3D with:

x

JTxx

QJT8xx

xx

 

Because now I KNOW they have a game or slam and diamonds could be a great sacrifice. Heck I would consider 4D.

[655321]

Add me to the list of people who make the normal and obvious 3♦ bid.

[wyman]

Thought about it some more and I seriously think 3D is a mistake here. There are some benefits (namely taking up space and pressuring the opponents) but to me the disadvantages are huge.

 

(1) There is nothing to suggest they will necessarily bid game here. They probably will, but a major suit game is unlikely if partner has some decent spades, which is as likely as not. (Corollary: any major suit game is going to break badly in both majors for them)

(2) Partner could have 2 defensive tricks and enable us to beat a game. We could have as much as 20 HCP combined. This hand might even be passed out!

(3) We might get creamed in 3D doubled without a game on for them. Also, the marked defensive diamond lead might help them assess their hands better.

(4) Opponents tend to bid aggressively Vul at IMPs, and they tend to bid TOO aggressively against preempts. They are more likely to bid and make a thin game by accident because I pushed them so high.

(5) If partner is on lead I don't want to demand a diamond lead. It will probably be a waste of timing. Either major could be better. Heck, clubs could be better.

(6) If a sacrifice is appropriate, partner will misjudge the number of losers we have in diamonds (as well as the length of my diamonds). It may lead to a sacrifice worse than their partscore, game or slam.

 

So my bid is 2D. Pass is next, followed by a psychic 1D or 1H. The one bid you will NOT see me make is 3D.

 

I would be much more likely to bid 3D with:

x

JTxx

QJT8xx

xx

 

Because now I KNOW they have a game or slam and diamonds could be a great sacrifice. Heck I would consider 4D.

 

I swear I'm not responding because it's you (in fact, I considered _not_ responding because it's you). However, to your points:

 

I don't see (2) as a reason not to preempt. If anything, opps are more likely to bid a game (possibly the wrong one, if there's a right one) if we preempt, and if partner has defensive tricks, great. Also, re: your comment in (1), they are getting a bad break in both majors, which is great for us.

Re: (3), your intermediates are not that bad, and at these colors, if they have enough to penalize 3D after a takeout, they are at least considering 3N. Plus, you know there are spades somewhere around the table. I think it's really unlikely that we play 3Dx.

(4) is a legit concern but again is somewhat balanced out by (2).

(5) I dont think anything is ever demanded. Also it's not at all clear that partner will be on lead.

And (6), you follow up by saying you'd consider 4D with x / Jxxx / QJxxxx / xx, which I find totally inconsistent. I don't know why partner is thinking about your losers specifically in the diamond suit. He's thinking about your losers in general. If he bumps you to 5/6 diamonds, it's incredibly unlikely that you'll have more than one loser in diamonds anyway. Your 6-4 has similar playing strength to a 7222, and I think it's certainly worth a bump to 3D. As I told OP privately, other calls that crossed my mind were 1D, 1H, and 2D. Ranking them, I think 3D > 1D > 1H > 2D, though I think the last two are close (as both are pretty bad, at least 1H serves as a lead director though).

[HighLow21]

I swear I'm not responding because it's you (in fact, I considered _not_ responding because it's you).

Can you feel the love?

 

I don't see (2) as a reason not to preempt. If anything, opps are more likely to bid a game (possibly the wrong one, if there's a right one) if we preempt, and if partner has defensive tricks, great. Also, re: your comment in (1), they are getting a bad break in both majors, which is great for us.

Re: (3), your intermediates are not that bad, and at these colors, if they have enough to penalize 3D after a takeout, they are at least considering 3N. Plus, you know there are spades somewhere around the table. I think it's really unlikely that we play 3Dx.

(4) is a legit concern but again is somewhat balanced out by (2).

(5) I dont think anything is ever demanded. Also it's not at all clear that partner will be on lead.

And (6), you follow up by saying you'd consider 4D with x / Jxxx / QJxxxx / xx, which I find totally inconsistent. I don't know why partner is thinking about your losers specifically in the diamond suit. He's thinking about your losers in general. If he bumps you to 5/6 diamonds, it's incredibly unlikely that you'll have more than one loser in diamonds anyway. Your 6-4 has similar playing strength to a 7222, and I think it's certainly worth a bump to 3D. As I told OP privately, other calls that crossed my mind were 1D, 1H, and 2D. Ranking them, I think 3D > 1D > 1H > 2D, though I think the last two are close (as both are pretty bad, at least 1H serves as a lead director though).

I think all your points are fine and I think mine are too.

[Siegmund]

I confess that with most of my partners this is a pass.

 

I can see a case for 3D (I hate the other listed choices) but even if we aren't worried about a heart fit, KQ in a side suit is a pretty serious flaw and I am being slightly optimistic to get this hand all the way up to 5 winners.

 

Now, take away the king of hearts, and I can start seriously considering opening 1D. Or even 1S. :)

[mr1303]

I really do hate bidding on this hand. The only time I'd do this is with a partner that I didn't rate.

[phil_20686]

Thought about it some more and I seriously think 3D is a mistake here. There are some benefits (namely taking up space and pressuring the opponents) but to me the disadvantages are huge.

 

You are massively underrating the effect of the fundamental rule of competitive bidding: If you take away their space, they will make a worse decision.

 

Sure sometimes that means they are in a game they would not have bid and it makes. More often it means they are in a game they should not have bid uncontested, and it goes off.

 

Diamonds and clubs make good preempts, as its often hard for the opponents to sort out their majors.

 

The relative poorness of your diamonds means that a heart game is largely out of the picture. A hand like AKxxxx diamonds and Kxxx hearts will actually play much better in hearts than the given hand. I do not think missing a game for our side is a concern. Getting penalised is a small concern, but my hand likely plays pretty well, and its rare to get penalised even when its right for the opps to do so.