[fuburules3]

Scoring: IMP

P 1♦ P 1♠
P 2♣ P ?

---

In auction like this where opener could have extras with my normal partners, I don't have any systematic way to bid except to try to keep auction open. What do you bid here? If you pass, how much stronger would you have to be to bid?

[gwnn]

3♣, barely.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

It is either Pass or 3C, anything else is ???.

I guess, I would pass, my regular p would bid 3C.

With kind regular
Marlowe

[nigel_k]

2♦. Keeps the auction open without promising more than I have.

It will sometimes fail when we would have been allowed to play 2♣ making, but also will sometimes lead to us getting to play 3♣ when partner would not pass if I bid it directly. Obviously if partner bids on freely then I have extras and can cooperate.

[aguahombre]

nigel_k, on Aug 23 2010, 02:31 PM, said:

2♦. Keeps the auction open without promising more than I have.

Yes it keeps the auction open. But it is not forcing, misstates which minor you prefer, and doesn't suggest near invitational values. Other than that, it is fine.

I have to make a false preference with 2-3 in the minors; can't see why I should do it with 2-4.

[Gerben42]

3♣ without alternatives really. Since you would pass 2♣ with Jxxxx / xx / Jx / ATxx, that isn't THAT much a range anyway.

[awm]

I like 2♦, but this depends a lot on partnership style and form of scoring.

At MP, I would pass 2♣. This is the percentage action. Bidding 2♦ will frequently lead you to play a worse partial than 2♣, and raising will both frequently reach a worse partial and occasionally get you overboard to a poor game.

If partner is one of these jokers who bids like this with 4♦/5♣, then I would raise clubs or pass. Correcting to diamonds could reach a 4-2 fit which is probably a huge disaster even at IMPs.

However, assuming partner has promised 5+♦ and 4+♣ (normally) and it's IMP scoring, the 2♦ call keeps the auction alive without promising more than I have. While 2♦ is often a worse partial than playing in clubs, I expect to make it most of the time (and I don't care if it's +90 instead of +110 at IMPs, really).

[jdonn]

I also like pass at mps and 2♦ at imps.

2 of aguahombre's 3 objections to 2♦ make no sense to me. I understand that I'm mistating which minor I prefer. But 2♦ being non-forcing is a plus rather than a minus, and it in fact suggests exactly the values I have.

[aguahombre]

awm, on Aug 23 2010, 06:13 PM, said:

If partner is one of these jokers who bids like this with 4♦/5♣, then I would raise clubs or pass. Correcting to diamonds could reach a 4-2 fit which is probably a huge disaster even at IMPs.

Being one of those jokers, and my partner being another one of those jokers, I agree.

[mcphee]

Why some prefer to not raise is to me odd. Basically 3C delivers in the 8-11 range, and while I sit near the bottom of that range I hold an A along with Jx of D (a tad shabby) and what might be a non working K (might be non working). If your partners are in the habit of opening the bidding because it is their turn with weakish minor suited hands passing is possible. On the other side of the coin if your partners are the sort who avoid opening poor minor suited hands you might have a game. Being from the camp that does not open shitty minor suited hands I raise, because it is what I have.

[Free]

awm, on Aug 24 2010, 01:13 AM, said:

If partner is one of these jokers who bids like this with 4♦/5♣, then I would raise clubs or pass. Correcting to diamonds could reach a 4-2 fit which is probably a huge disaster even at IMPs.

We joke systemically, but because of this we play 2♦ F1. It will sometimes lose, but it rarely does (hasn't come up yet) and gets us to the best fit and correct level most of the time.

[neilkaz]

To me, this is just barely enough to raise to 3♣. A 2♦ false preference is a slightly better description of my values, but I fear it will too often result in playing in the wrong minor suit.

[billw55]

Quote

2♦. Keeps the auction open without promising more than I have.

Quote

But 2♦ being non-forcing is a plus rather than a minus, and it in fact suggests exactly the values I have.

Quote

A 2♦ false preference is a slightly better description of my values

Wow I have a lot to learn about bridge.

These comments make no sense to me. I would bid 2♦ with almost any old pile of crap that has equal length in the minors (or longer diamonds). After partner's 2♣, my hand is so much better than that. How can 2♦ possibly be a good description of my values? I often use SJ Simon's test: how much worse could this hand be? I think it could be far worse and bid 2♦.

When I read the OP I thought I was about to see a raft of "3♣ wtp?". In fact I would rather pass than bid 2♦, which seems a favorite to pass out and get a strange look from across the table when I lay this down.

Back to class for me I guess.

[fuburules3]

Thanks for all the replies.

What actually happened was I bid 2♦ and partner had a minimum 1444, so we ended up playing in the inferior 4-2 fit (fortunately it made). The reason I asked is because it was in a BBO ACBL online tourney and we were only pair playing 2♦, so I wanted to know if I was absolutely crazy to bid like that.

To the people raising to 3 clubs, you normally play a raise here is a "good" 8 to "bad" 12? It just seems that if I raise with this hand, my range is very wide and we could play a lot of hopeless games. On the other hand, playing 2 diamonds on the 4-2 fit is obviously not ideal either.

[fred]

billw55, on Aug 24 2010, 05:25 PM, said:

Back to class for me I guess.

Me too - the concept of bidding 2D with this hand (or with just about any hand with 2 diamonds and 4 clubs) strikes me as extremely bizarre.

And no, I am not one of those jokers (not my word!) who opens 1D with 4-5 in the minors (though I might rebid 1NT instead of 2C with a soft 2254 hand and with some 1444s - I suppose these factors have an impact on this problem as well).

I agree with those who think that, at MPs at least, this is a relatively close 2-horse race between Pass and 3C. I prefer 3C even at MPs, but I don't feel strongly about it. I think 3C is clear at IMPs.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[gwnn]

ha!

[JLOGIC]

3C at imps and pass at MP. I feel about equally strongly about passing at MP as I do about bidding at imps though.

[awm]

My view on this hand is that if I raise to 3♣, I expect partner to try 3NT with a 2254 or 1354 hand of 14-18 hcp including a heart stopper. Otherwise with 14-18 hcp I'd expect at minimum some try for 3NT (possibly subsiding in 4♣ when we deny the heart control if at the bottom end of this range).

Looking at our hand, I'd expect to reach an awful lot of lousy games this way. This is especially true at MP scoring (where <50% is a bad game) but likely applies at IMPs as well (no reason 22-24 high with a 4-4 club fit is making 3NT as far as I can tell, and partner will push for game on some good 13-bad 14 hands he might not push on at MP).

If your expectations are different please say so... but I wonder how you will reach your good 15-opposite-10 and 14-opposite-11 games if the 3♣ raise shows a lot less for you than it does for me (unless you game force those 10 and 11-point hands with this shape which seems equally as bad).

[nigel_k]

I'm not yet convinced of the merit of 3♣.

This is not a particularly good hand for NT and if we bid 3♣ partner will bid on with any 2254 or 1354 shape including a heart stop and, say, 14 or more HCP, e.g.

x
AQx
Kxxxx
KQxx

Why do I have to end up in a silly 3NT on such a normal pair of hands? You could add ♦Q to the above and 3NT is still marginal, or you could add other cards instead where 3NT is still hopeless. In fact, if you add enough for 3NT to be good, the hand will be one that would probably act over 2♦.

3♣ is only a good expression of our values if we are going to play in clubs or spades and if we have game in either of those, partner will definitely bid again.

In fact, I'm more convinced of 2♦ now than I was before.

I respond light but I don't agree with the 'how much worse could I be' test because the really bad hands are less likely than the normal ones. It's a better policy for both players to evaluate with reference to a 'normal' minimum response and accept you'll sometimes overbid when responder is really weak.

[fred]

Nigel - try thinking about it this way:

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.

That in itself is (easily) enough to convince me to reject 2D, but it gets worse: if partner bids again over your 2D, it is not like you can always expect to get to the right spot - for one thing, it is not going to occur to partner that you have 2-4 in the minors no matter what you do. You might be able to suggest 3-4 in the minors, but perhaps not without taking a unilateral action.

Of course both Pass and 3C will also lead to the wrong contract fairly often too, but at least with 3C some of these wrong contracts will be games, some of these games will make (through luck and/or misdefense) and you will end up with a nice vulnerable game bonus.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com