[benlessard]

This was a hand told to me

---

South should bid 3nt and north correct to 4H.

I think 4H is making and 3 NT went down, I would have bid 2D on round 1 with north hand but I agree that passing and jumping might be better. Anyway... tough hand. (it look like 4H could go down if west underlead his K of S despite seeing AQX on dummy at trick 2(not an easy play to find) It wont work if East has 3D.

[quiddity]

mikeh, on 2013-June-25, 00:33, said:

2. rather than me set out examples, it might be more useful for you to create some hands and work it out for yourself. If you can't...if all the examples have you bidding earlier or over 2♦, then you and I have fundamentally different understandings of the game. I am not being sarcastic: I really think that working this sort of thing out for oneself is the best way to try to understand the point. I would be happy to comment on any examples you post. Bear in mind that opener wil not have a fit for at least one major when he reopens with 2♦.

My point was that the vast majority of the hands you're worried about (maximums, hands with long majors) can act over 2♦. I think it is somewhat difficult to think of counter examples. Maximums with 2+ diamonds might raise, if nothing else. Any hand with 6+ cards in a major can bid it. Any hand with 5 spades and some points could make a negative double and rebid spades. Many hands with 4-3 or 3-4 in the majors and 8 points would double, especially when LHO has a 2♣ overcall and we have ♣Kxx.

IMO you are way overrating the chance of missing game. It must be far more likely to catch partner with a bad hand than to catch him with a game-going hand which can't act.

edit: btw, I don't see how you could "not understand" 2♦. The hand was worth 1.5NT when we started and clearly it has gotten worse. Even when partner has 7-8 we are less likely to make 3NT when LHO has a long suit and a side entry. How can it be so crazy to take the low road and still give ourselves a shot when partner has the 6+ card major (IMO the most likely hand where game is available)?

[mikeh]

quiddity, on 2013-June-25, 13:09, said:

edit: btw, I don't see how you could "not understand" 2♦. The hand was worth 1.5NT when we started and clearly it has gotten worse. Even when partner has 7-8 we are less likely to make 3NT when LHO has a long suit and a side entry. How can it be so crazy to take the low road and still give ourselves a shot when partner has the 6+ card major (IMO the most likely hand where game is available)?

You and I disagree here on just about every aspect of the hand and I doubt that you'll be persuaded by anything that doesn't accord with your thinking....and I know that I've still seen no persuasive argument for treating this 3=2=5=3 18 count the same way I'd treat many minimum hands (see Andy's example). I am usually one of the most pessimistic bidders in any event in which I play, yet the 2♦ bidders make me seem like a wild man. Weird. Oh well.

[quiddity]

mikeh, on 2013-June-25, 14:23, said:

You and I disagree here on just about every aspect of the hand and I doubt that you'll be persuaded by anything that doesn't accord with your thinking....and I know that I've still seen no persuasive argument for treating this 3=2=5=3 18 count the same way I'd treat many minimum hands (see Andy's example). I am usually one of the most pessimistic bidders in any event in which I play, yet the 2♦ bidders make me seem like a wild man. Weird. Oh well.

Well, I will try one more time since I still don't know where we disagree.

Which hands will bid game over 2N but pass over 2♦? IMO the vast majority of such hands will be balanced 6-8 counts, with more 6-counts than 8-counts.
Are we a favorite to make game opposite that range? IMO, no we are not.
Is there a decent chance that 2N will turn a plus into a minus? IMO, yes there is.

Do you disagree with any of these opinions? Are there other considerations which make 2NT more attractive?

[mikeh]

I fear that I am simply inviting you to post reasons why you think I am wrong. That's one of the characteristics of the game: we can each cling to our point of view on this case since it is very difficult to demonstrate empirically which is the better approach, and even when the arguments on one side are the more powerful, many of us are unable to accept that and will rationalize away anything that contradicts our point of view. I like to think that an awareness of that propensity helps mitigate its effect, but I'm not naïve enough to claim that I am immune to it.

Let's assume my partner reopened with 2♦. Here a couple of hands on which I would pass twice...once over 2♣ and again over 2♦.


Kxx Kxxxx xxx Qx.

On a club lead against 3N, I win the Q, and hook the diamond. I will play LHO for the heart A if need be. I have an excellent play for 3N and will be in 3N if I reopen with double, then notrump, or 2N.


Kxx Qxxxx Qx Qxx

I have 9 tops on the vast majority of hands

I think your notion of passing and then bidding a 5 card major, when partner promised an unbalanced hand short in at least one major, is bizarre. If my partner were to pass and then bid 2M over my 2♦ I'd expect something like QJxxxxx or a decent 6 card suit. He expects me to pass with as little as a stiff, else we are bidding misfitting hands with no significant combined values to the 3 level, which really is crazy.

Note I am giving partner the club Q and you may argue he isn't favourite to hold that card...and you'd be right. However, you would be very wrong, indeed, to say that he cannot hold the hands I have given you, at least in any partnership of which I'd want to be a member.

If your point is that bidding 2N caters to a small group of hands, I'd agree with you. They happen to be a very important group of hands.

It is possible to construct hands with nothing in clubs on which doubling (intending to bid notrump) or 2N works out better than 2♦ but they are also relatively uncommon, and I suspect that the hands I'd offer as support for that statement would merely trigger more frustrating exchanges as you nitpick by claiming that you'd do something else (which I am sure you would deny would in any way be influenced by knowing what opener's hand was...and I wouldn't call you a liar but I'd probably think you were mistaken)

I'm done on this thread, no matter what you put up. I don't think I've persuaded you and that's ok with me. I'm comfortable that my approach works for me and I am reinforced by the apparent agreement of the better players who have posted on the topic.

[Cascade]

mikeh, on 2013-June-25, 15:57, said:

Kxx Kxxxx xxx Qx.

Kxx Qxxxx Qx Qxx

Here is the problem as I see it. The action when 2♣ comes back to us is dependent on the action partner takes or rather the set of hands on which partner does not take action over 2♣.

I would be happy to double with both of your example hands over 2♣. I don't consider the first one close, although I would prefer to have my ♣Q elsewhere. The second one, although a point stronger, we have less chance of having and finding a fit but I would still double.

Of course I am usually not really in this position as I don't have 18 points balanced and open 1♦.

As you say we bring all of these biases to the forums when we answer these questions.

Before you ask I like to double 2♣ with almost all 8+ hands with some useful values (and unsuitable for a raise or other bid - we happen to play negative free bids). I only pass with more than this with length in clubs.

[quiddity]

mikeh, on 2013-June-25, 15:57, said:

I fear that I am simply inviting you to post reasons why you think I am wrong. That's one of the characteristics of the game: we can each cling to our point of view on this case since it is very difficult to demonstrate empirically which is the better approach, and even when the arguments on one side are the more powerful, many of us are unable to accept that and will rationalize away anything that contradicts our point of view. I like to think that an awareness of that propensity helps mitigate its effect, but I'm not naïve enough to claim that I am immune to it.

Please stop posting condescending crap like this in response to simple bridge questions.

Quote

Let's assume my partner reopened with 2♦. Here a couple of hands on which I would pass twice...once over 2♣ and again over 2♦.


Kxx Kxxxx xxx Qx.

...

Kxx Qxxxx Qx Qxx

Would you? I think a negative double is reasonable, and if I passed first I would consider raising over 2♦ with a maximum and a fit (and a likely club stopper too?) Maybe this is part of the disagreement. If opener has a hand which was planning to rebid 3♦ does he always just ignore the overcall/pass and rebid 3♦ anyway? If he can have a 16-count with a decent 6-card suit and still bid just 2♦ then I think you need to act with the second hand for sure and perhaps with the first hand too.

Quote

I think your notion of passing and then bidding a 5 card major, when partner promised an unbalanced hand short in at least one major, is bizarre.

When did I ever suggest doing that?

Quote

If your point is that bidding 2N caters to a small group of hands, I'd agree with you. They happen to be a very important group of hands.

Of course that is my point. "Very important group" - what does that mean? Are we not simply concerned with the number of hands in this group versus the number of hands where 2NT does poorly? Posting a couple of cherry-picked hands where 3NT is cold is not a bridge argument. Do you disagree that 2NT is likely to do poorly whenever partner holds 6-7 balanced, any shape?

Quote

I'm done on this thread, no matter what you put up. I don't think I've persuaded you and that's ok with me. I'm comfortable that my approach works for me and I am reinforced by the apparent agreement of the better players who have posted on the topic.

lol, what is the point of participating on a bridge forum if you don't want to discuss bridge?
For the record, despite all your insinuations to the contrary, I am in no way convinced that 2♦ is right. My initial instinct was 2NT - that's what you do with 18-19 balanced+stopper, right? But when I think about the possible hands for responder, 2♦ doesn't seem terrible.

[mikeh]

edited

[aguahombre]

Raise your hand if you really think the 2NT reopening is correct with any balanced 18-19 which has a club stopper. For us, it isn't. "Delay unusual" is out, of course because 2C was the overcall. So, it is sort of natural. But, we would only do it with about 8 real tricks (solid diamonds, of course).

And, yes, pard stretches to make a negative double on the first round with bare tolerance to put down dummy in Diamonds at the next level if I miss her major. Thus a 2NT reopening after her pass is not likely to hit an 7-9 count. If it does, then doubling as a rebalance followed by 2NT will be ok.

[IVAN CY LO]

I play negative free bids with partner at 2 level, he can bid a 5 cards suit with just 7HCP at 2 level because it is a negative free bid. My system with partner after overcall always cue-bid = game forcing, 2M after overcall = negative free bids, around 7-10 and 5 cards in M. Double = forcing for 1 round and asking 4 cards major, obviously no 5 cards suit (around 7-10). Double and then bid a suit, 11+ with a game inv. value, 4 cards.

With this system partner pass after overcall, usually he has a crap hand with below 8. Game isn't our concern but we need to find a suit fit to compete. NT overcall usually showing 18-19, but we don't play overcall 2NT, usually is 1♦ - 1♥ - Pass - Pass - 1NT(18-19).

It is no sense to rebid a 2NT as we played direct openning 2NT = 20-21, 2C = 22+. If partner holding a 0 points crap hand, re-bid 2NT will be disaster and giving opp. 200-500 depends on vul.

Usually this hand partner pass overcall 2C, I will bid based on my hand and assuming he has crap. 2♦ will be my first choice. If my partner correct to any M after 2♦. It is not a forcing but saying that we don't have fit in ♦. With 2 cards in ♥ and 3 cards in ♠, I can accept his any correctness after 2♦.

If jump shift in new suit after 2♦, it is not likely to happen but this means an extra length(7+) and few count in strength.