[bid_em_up]

<sarcasm on>

Great!! Yippee!! Hurray!! Break out the band!!!

You found partner with one of the few possible hands that allows you to make 6♦ and you managed to bid it. Good for you.

</sarcasm off>

Unlike codo, I dont think 3♥ is a splinter agreeing diamonds (Most will treat it as a good heart suit, invitational, I believe), but certainly this hand will/should raise 2♦ to 3♦, which makes getting to at least the diamond game a cinch and it isnt unreasonable to get to the slam.

The problem is when you bid 3♦ (which should be a game forcing bid) and partner holds x Qxxx xx KQxxxx or similar (which he will the majority of the time). Now where do you go?

Additionally, the diamond game on a 5-3 fit will not be a good proposition.

microcap, on Jun 30 2006, 12:59 PM, said:

But as I am attempting to impress upon Rex, technically correct bridge often leads precisely to losing bridge.   As Warren Buffett is famous for saying, "I would rather be approximately right than precisely wrong!"

Unfortunately, I suspect that Warren would also prefer to be precisely right whenever he could be, instead of being wrong the majority of the time, which the 3♦ bid will be. Rex's position of making the technically correct bid will be the winning position to take over the long run. I would expect 3♦ to be a losing call over the long run. Somebody with a simulator should be able to determine this (I would guess that its only successful in 15-30% of the hands, if that high).

microcap, on Jun 30 2006, 12:59 PM, said:

This is a Clint Eastwood hand--"Do you feel lucky?"

Or Bruce Willis. Yippie Kai Yea, MF!!

Cowboy, I think maybe you should listen to Rex some more.

[HeartA]

2D, wtp?

[mgoetze]

The Blue Team ideas on "biddable suits" and other such suit quality requirements (and really, look at what the book says about jump canapé, in reality you'll never get dealt such pure suits) may be a bit dated, but I think the best time to think of them is when you are planning such overbids as 3!d. I mean, come on, is ♥KJx even worth 4 points? Put those honors in ♦ and I'll think about it... admittedly not for very long, though.

More interesting to me is what to rebid with this hand if playing Riton 2♣. 2♦ seems an underbid but with 2♣ you'll never get your shape across properly...

[cherdano]

jillybean2, on Jun 30 2006, 03:20 PM, said:

What is wrong with a 1♦ opening here? Opening 1♠ makes it impossible to show your hand

1♦ 2♠ 3♠

If you open 1♦ and reverse into spades, you are always showing longer diamonds than spades in standard bidding.

(I am not saying this is good or bad, I am just saying that without special agreements, partner will never allow for 5♠/5♦ after you open 1♦.)

Some partnerships allow to open 1♣ with 5-5 in the black suits, but while that's not a rare agreement, it's still clearly non-standard as far as I know.

Arend

[sfbp]

3♦ - all day, every day and on the Queen's official birthday, to name but a few.

Once you have got used to bidding up powerful hands when you have no more than 15 points, it becomes a case of "points, schmoints".

Why DO 2/1 players always have MORE of everything? The rest of us manage quite fine.

Stephen

[kfgauss]

jillybean2, on Jun 30 2006, 01:20 PM, said:

What is wrong with a 1♦ opening here? Opening 1♠ makes it impossible to show your hand

1♦ 2♠ 3♠

Probably you mistook the "1" and "0" of diamonds as distinct cards (it does make the diamond suit look longer at first glance, actually).

Anyways, I'm a 2♦ bidder. Partner won't tend to pass when we have something, and this will afford me better description of my hand (more room) and more safety when we have a misfit.

Well done to get to the slam. Of course, who's to say if you'd held back a bit you wouldn't have subsequently made a slam try over partner's 3♦ (which partner is presumably accepting).

Andy

[jillybean]

jillybean2, on Jun 30 2006, 06:20 AM, said:

What is wrong with a 1♦ opening here? Opening 1♠ makes it impossible to show your hand

1♦ 2♠ 3♠

Forget that, I was imagining more ♦'s or something

♦♦♦♦♦♦girls best friend

[P_Marlowe]

Codo, on Jun 30 2006, 01:51 PM, said:

Why wouldnßt this happen?

1 ♠ 1 NT 2 ♦ 3 ♥ splinter agreeing Hearts seems to be a good way to 6♦ and yes, this would happen in 95% or more experts partnerships I believe...
Rex had the best possible hand opposite your 2 ♦ bid and you have extras too, so no problem to reach slam.

I am not 100% sure, if opener will really
get exicted over a 3H bid, afterall he holds
KJx in hearts and faces a limited responder.

Besides, 2D does not gurantee a 4 card heart
suit, at least if you require, that 2H has to be 6
card suit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

2♦ is automatic.

[sceptic]

The amount of times I have bid 3 diamonds on this type of hand playing 2/1 and screwed up badly because I think the controls are good and the shape and void will get me to my imaginary slam when pard has the perfect hand for me

if your pard bids 1NT forcing on an Ace (Ace clubs is not the feature I want to see) you can end up in deep shite (which I have done on numerous occasions)

I prefer 2 diamonds and think it is the right thing to do, it keeps me out the shite

[han]

sfbp, on Jun 30 2006, 07:14 PM, said:

3♦ - all day, every day and on the Queen's official birthday, to name but a few.

Once you have got used to bidding up powerful hands when you have no more than 15 points, it becomes a case of "points, schmoints".

Why DO 2/1 players always have MORE of everything? The rest of us manage quite fine.

Stephen

2♦ is automatic playing 2/1, standard American, different versions of Acol and French standard. Only playing strong club can you afford to to jumpshift here, but that is completely different.

[mcphee]

Those players looking for rules take note:

The Reverse ALWAYS shows a longer first suit. One of the rew hard fast rules.

[hotShot]

mcphee, on Jul 1 2006, 03:43 PM, said:

Those players looking for rules take note:

The Reverse ALWAYS shows a longer first suit. One of the rew hard fast rules.

So you can't reverse with

---

[hatchett]

Quote

So you can't reverse withDealer:  ????? 
Vul:  ???? 
Scoring:  Unknown 
♠  KQ54 
♥  Q 
♦  AKJ2 
♣  KQ53 
 

correct, you can't reverse.

You would open 1♦ and over a 1♥ response either bid 2♠ or 1♠ if that was forcing.

[hrothgar]

sfbp, on Jul 1 2006, 03:14 AM, said:

3♦ - all day, every day and on the Queen's official birthday, to name but a few.

Once you have got used to bidding up powerful hands when you have no more than 15 points, it becomes a case of "points, schmoints".

Why DO 2/1 players always have MORE of everything? The rest of us manage quite fine.

For what its worth, I consider this a clear cut 2♦ response. The 3♦ uses a lot of bidding space. Accordingly, it needs to be relatively well defined. Your constructive bidding is going to suffer enormously if if the 3♦ rebid has a large range. Furthermore, I don't believe that familiarity with this style improve matters significantly. The issue is one's ability to design a sensible response structure, not getting "used to" partner's style.

Finally, I don't think that this issue is specific to 2/1 game force... You see the same fairly rigid strength requirements for a 3♦ jump rebid in a wide variety of bidding systems. The major exceptions are systems that have some mechanism to offload very strong two suited hands from the one level opening. For example, adopting a Strong Club opening restricts the maximum strength for a 3♦ jump rebid. According, one can safely drop the miimum strength required for the bid. Ben's Misery preempts achieve the same end...

[P_Marlowe]

mcphee, on Jul 1 2006, 08:43 AM, said:

Those players looking for rules take note:

The Reverse ALWAYS shows a longer first suit. One of the rew hard fast rules.

I would modify this rule,
openers first suit is a 5 card suit.
It depends of course how you
define reverse, is a jump shift a
reverse?

3D in the given auction shows 5-4,
but maybe 5-5-.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[microcap]

Codo, on Jun 30 2006, 01:51 PM, said:

Why wouldnßt this happen?

1 ♠ 1 NT 2 ♦ 3 ♥ splinter agreeing Hearts seems to be a good way to 6♦ and yes, this would happen in 95% or more experts partnerships I believe...
Rex had the best possible hand opposite your 2 ♦ bid and you have extras too, so no problem to reach slam.

Rex is ALWAYS correct about book bids---I post these hands for me to learn LOL

A couple final comments/questions:


Now the♥ splinter has turned my hand from 15 HCP [which most have said wasn't enough for g/f] to 11 HCP. So getting to slam seems inconceivable, much less 95% of expert partnerships.

Bid_em_up is a far better player than I am. But even if I bid 2♦ here, where am I going with his sample hand of x Qxxx xx KQxxxx? No contract will be a good one. So maybe I go down one extra in this hand by bidding 3♦.

Here is a possible expected return table when bidding 3♦-

20%--- plus 13 imps
20%--- flat board
40%-- lose 2 imps
20%-- lose 6 imps

This adds up to more than zero, meaning it is a long run winner not loser. While obviously the percentages are arbitrary on my part, I hardly think they are outrageous.

Comments?

[mikestar]

I pull it in a notch and settle for 2♦ playing Precision. 3♦ is OK on values, but will miss a 5-3 heart fit if it exists. But partner's most likely shape has long clubs, particulary since neither opponent overcalled in clubs. If this is the case, he may well pass 3♦ with a doubleton and that isn't going to play well at all.

The point of this being, if it isn't a good bet to bid 3♦ strong but NF in Precision, how can 3♦ GF possibly be right?

Consider also that 1NT forcing can be weaker in 2/1 than in Precision, where responer can pass on a nondescript 6-count.

[mikestar]

In 2/1, if 3♥ is not a splinter (I think it shouldn't be) after 1♠-1NT-2♦, partner should jump to 4♦ with his miracle fit and the slam should be reached.

[awm]

Several comments here:

(1) The slam bid on the actual hands isn't all that great. If diamonds are not 2-2 there will be a number of issues, in particular that you will often need to ruff a spade (unless spades 3-3) and also will need to ruff at least one heart.

(2) If partner has a hand that would pass 2♦, it will often be best to play 2♦. Certainly if partner has only three diamonds and less than 10 points, it's hard to construct hands where 5♦ or 3NT is particularly good. Even on a "no wastage maximum" hand like Qx Axxx Kxx xxxx, you will need diamonds to break to really have a chance.

(3) It's quite possible to re-evaluate a hand once partner chooses to raise. If partner bids 3♦ over 2♦ then opener's hand is superb and there's nothing preventing you from trying for slam at that point. Certainly at least game will be reached.

There's a general question about how to evaluate hands here. With a little distribution, it will often be the case that a hand is quite powerful in the presence of a decent fit and not so good opposite a misfit. The three basic views are: (1) Be optimistic, assume there's a fit until you find out otherwise. (2) Go with the average situation, usually a moderate fit (complete misfit is on fewer than 15% of hands) until you find out otherwise one way or the other. (3) Assume misfit and be conservative until you find out otherwise. I'm a strong believer in method (3), because playing 2/1 or similar methods your side must often decide whether to game force early in the auction. Once you're forced to game it's very difficult to "back off" when you find out there's no fit -- you're forced to game! On the other hand, when you do have a fit, partner will virtually always raise one of your suits, and it's easy to then start cuebidding or otherwise push the auction towards slam. As applied to this hand, certainly in the presence of a good fit the hand is worth a game force. But if I force to game at second call I'm stuck with that, fit or no fit. Obviously it will be "right" more often than "wrong" but why am I taking a percentage guess this early in the auction? Partner won't drop me in 2♦ with a good fit after all. By taking the conservative path I will usually get to a good spot.