Help
Your call?
Does the law give you courage? Tener cojones?
#1
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 944
- Joined: 2021-February-13
- Gender:Not Telling
- Interests:Bidding & play optimisation via simulation.
Posted 2021-August-12, 10:13
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,191
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2021-August-12, 10:26
I use old-fashioned losing trick count as part of my evaluations so to me this is a 6-loser hand with all prime cards, much better than many opening hands that can have 7 or 8 losers with quacks. There is always risk in bidding, but to sit quietly when holding a better-than-average opening hand with an easy bid to make seems too cautious. I venture 2D - nothing ventured, nothing gained (or lost at times).
And yes, I saw the vulnerability.
And yes, I saw the vulnerability.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,081
- Joined: 2014-June-01
Posted 2021-August-12, 10:29
The suit is terrible, we are red. But I’m 6-4.
Bidding 2D at MPs (not proudly).
Looking at the stage of the match at IMPs.
Bidding 2D at MPs (not proudly).
Looking at the stage of the match at IMPs.
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,245
- Joined: 2020-March-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Netherlands
Posted 2021-August-12, 12:33
Sure, 2♦. I'm prepared for the post-mortem.
Somewhere out there someone is playing equal level conversion and doubles, this is the perfect hand.
Somewhere out there someone is playing equal level conversion and doubles, this is the perfect hand.
#5
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 974
- Joined: 2017-August-10
- Gender:Male
Posted 2021-August-12, 13:13
I wish you had not shown the south hand in the post until later. red/white I do not like 2♦ by north, but you cannot X and bid 2♦ next (if partner bids 2♣) as that shows a better hand. you have 2 and a half quick tricks and a six card suit, but poor six card suit. it is a bidders game so with hesitation (but not at the table I hope) I will call 2♦. it is not a good bid but it is not a bad bid. sometimes you have to just bid and suffer consequences.
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,831
- Joined: 2011-June-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:UK Near London
- Interests:Crystal Palace
Posted 2021-August-12, 16:56
I would pass as north.
"definitely that's what I like to play when I'm playing standard - I want to be able to bid diamonds because bidding good suits is important in bridge" - Meckstroth's opinion on weak 2 diamond
#7
- hooked
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,639
- Joined: 2003-November-15
- Gender:Female
- Location:Vancouver, Canada
- Interests:Multi
Posted 2021-August-12, 17:21
LBengtsson, on 2021-August-12, 13:13, said:
I wish you had not shown the south hand in the post until later. red/white I do not like 2♦ by north, but you cannot X and bid 2♦ next (if partner bids 2♣) as that shows a better hand. you have 2 and a half quick tricks and a six card suit, but poor six card suit. it is a bidders game so with hesitation (but not at the table I hope) I will call 2♦. it is not a good bid but it is not a bad bid. sometimes you have to just bid and suffer consequences.
2♦ for me too, I'd like to get the hearts in with a double but with 2 small clubs that's not an option.
AAK, are too good to pass but at times my bidding is not the smartest!
"And no matter what methods you play, it is essential, for anyone aspiring to learn to be a good player, to learn the importance of bidding shape properly." MikeH
(still learning)
(still learning)
#8
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 944
- Joined: 2021-February-13
- Gender:Not Telling
- Interests:Bidding & play optimisation via simulation.
Posted 2021-August-13, 04:04
What now?
P.S. 2♦ shows 5+♦ rather than 6+ if that makes a difference
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,245
- Joined: 2020-March-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Netherlands
Posted 2021-August-13, 05:47
Form of scoring? At IMPs I'm never staying out of game, so 3♠ (stopper asking) and then convert 3NT to 5♦ to show a strong raise. 4♥ would be a NF fitbid for me instead of a splinter, so I can't bid that. At matchpoints you might take the low road and bid 4♣ fitbid, intending to pass 4♦ (or you could raise anyway?). 3♠ is less attractive because pulling 3NT to 4♦ is forcing. I think 2NT is a good bid if partner will take it as a diamond raise, not a desire to play. But at matchpoints I'd probably bid 4♣ and leave it to partner.
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,280
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2021-August-13, 06:30
I'm not staying out of game even at MPs, we play 4♡ as splinter and that would be my choice. We would probably stop in 5◇ once it is clear we are missing a Keycard probably ♧A.
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,234
- Joined: 2014-April-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Norway
- Interests:partscores
Posted 2021-August-13, 07:10
jillybean, on 2021-August-12, 17:21, said:
AAK, are too good to pass but at times my bidding is not the smartest!
There seems to be a common misunderstanding that passing is more like kibitzing than bidding,
#12
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,191
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2021-August-13, 08:42
Someone else said it but it bears repeating: passing is risky, too. Consider these two deals.
Spoiler
Spoiler
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
#13
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 944
- Joined: 2021-February-13
- Gender:Not Telling
- Interests:Bidding & play optimisation via simulation.
Posted 2021-August-14, 00:36
Which South bid is preferrable?
Do you take it to 5♦?
Do you take it to 5♦?
#14
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,245
- Joined: 2020-March-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Netherlands
Posted 2021-August-14, 01:24
At these colours the 2♦ bid really promises a 6-card suit, so North doesn't have that much extra shape. You can tolerate 5♦ and you can tolerate defending, so I'd make a forcing pass to let partner decide (over the 3♠ bid). South has extra shape and knows that North's diamond values are wasted on defence so they hopefully bid the 5♦ (following Simon's rule - if you don't know, bid one more). Of course this was South's plan anyway, but 4♠X might be a juicy harvest once in a while.
If partner bid 4♦ - a poor bid, in my opinion - I think you have to bid 5 as North. South promises a weak hand with shapely diamond support, 5♦ is probably only one or two off and 4♠ seems to be cold.
The whole point of competitive bidding is to paint an accurate picture of your hand as early as possible to prepare partner for 5-over-4 and 5-over-5 decisions. You do not so much want to get to your final contract as much as you want to also have informed partner on the right course of action over interference.
If partner bid 4♦ - a poor bid, in my opinion - I think you have to bid 5 as North. South promises a weak hand with shapely diamond support, 5♦ is probably only one or two off and 4♠ seems to be cold.
The whole point of competitive bidding is to paint an accurate picture of your hand as early as possible to prepare partner for 5-over-4 and 5-over-5 decisions. You do not so much want to get to your final contract as much as you want to also have informed partner on the right course of action over interference.
#15
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 944
- Joined: 2021-February-13
- Gender:Not Telling
- Interests:Bidding & play optimisation via simulation.
Posted 2021-August-16, 00:45
How it turned out
We play the Overcall Structure with 3♦ ostensibly showing 5♦5♥.
I had a close choice between 2&3♦, but with 6.5 playing tricks (just about Ok with unfavourable vulnerability) and wanting to show ♥ as well I chose the latter given the 10 cards in 2 suits and suspecting 2♦ would be bettered with at least 2♠.
5♦ (for down 1.7) made with the optimum contract being 5♥X. The better positive scores were 4x5♦ and 4♦X
We play the Overcall Structure with 3♦ ostensibly showing 5♦5♥.
I had a close choice between 2&3♦, but with 6.5 playing tricks (just about Ok with unfavourable vulnerability) and wanting to show ♥ as well I chose the latter given the 10 cards in 2 suits and suspecting 2♦ would be bettered with at least 2♠.
5♦ (for down 1.7) made with the optimum contract being 5♥X. The better positive scores were 4x5♦ and 4♦X
#16
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,245
- Joined: 2020-March-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Netherlands
Posted 2021-August-16, 02:35
3♦, lying about the length of a major suit, is a bad bid.
#17
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 944
- Joined: 2021-February-13
- Gender:Not Telling
- Interests:Bidding & play optimisation via simulation.
Posted 2021-August-16, 02:40
DavidKok, on 2021-August-16, 02:35, said:
3♦, lying about the length of a major suit, is a bad bid.
Yep - serves me right, however that was the best of the minus scores save for those that made 6♦ so some small consolation.
#18
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,169
- Joined: 2011-November-21
- Gender:Not Telling
- Location:Australia
- Interests:Overbidding
Posted 2021-August-18, 06:51
mw64ahw, on 2021-August-16, 00:45, said:
How it turned out
We play the Overcall Structure with 3♦ ostensibly showing 5♦5♥.
I had a close choice between 2&3♦, but with 6.5 playing tricks (just about Ok with unfavourable vulnerability) and wanting to show ♥ as well I chose the latter given the 10 cards in 2 suits and suspecting 2♦ would be bettered with at least 2♠.
5♦ (for down 1.7) made with the optimum contract being 5♥X. The better positive scores were 4x5♦ and 4♦X
We play the Overcall Structure with 3♦ ostensibly showing 5♦5♥.
I had a close choice between 2&3♦, but with 6.5 playing tricks (just about Ok with unfavourable vulnerability) and wanting to show ♥ as well I chose the latter given the 10 cards in 2 suits and suspecting 2♦ would be bettered with at least 2♠.
5♦ (for down 1.7) made with the optimum contract being 5♥X. The better positive scores were 4x5♦ and 4♦X
Ha, I was thinking the overcall structure makes it very easy - but we play it 5/4. I don't think the 5/5 version comes up nearly often enough to be worth playing.
#19
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 944
- Joined: 2021-February-13
- Gender:Not Telling
- Interests:Bidding & play optimisation via simulation.
Posted 2021-August-18, 07:46
I play it such that if I can bid the suit at the 2-level or pass then I require 4, otherwise 5(+). So 1♣-2♣ could be 4♦ & 4♠. The 2NT bids can be 5-4 though with 8.5 playing tricks.
The other variation I play is that the 2♠ bids can be 4+♠ & 5(+)♣ or 6+♠ similar to Frelling2♠
In the above case I veered from my norm since I had 10 cards in 2 suits and the opponents were likely to bid 2♠
The other variation I play is that the 2♠ bids can be 4+♠ & 5(+)♣ or 6+♠ similar to Frelling2♠
In the above case I veered from my norm since I had 10 cards in 2 suits and the opponents were likely to bid 2♠
#20
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 321
- Joined: 2008-November-20
- Gender:Male
- Interests:sailing, bridge
Posted 2021-September-08, 10:17
mw64ahw, on 2021-August-13, 04:04, said:
What now?
P.S. 2♦ shows 5+♦ rather than 6+ if that makes a difference
I think I will directly bid 5♦ to play.