[bluecalm]

I understand people who bid 2♦. I even think it's classic "book" bid.
We don't have enough to invite but we want to keep bidding open in case partner has 16-17hcp.

That being said I think Fred's argument is more important. We are just giving away equity by choosing inferior ♦ fit instead of ♣ one.

My opinion is that this is another sequence which shows weakness of classical systems. 11-17 range is just too wide here. You will have some awkward guesses and this hand is as close as it gets. It's even worse in "standard" american systems (no gazilli, so no intermediate jumps with 5-5) because partner may have real powerhouse here as 3♣ is game forcing.

Note how much better this situation is in precision. We know partner don't have great 15 with 5-5 (cause he would open 1♣ or jump to 3♣ depending on style). We know we have at most 23hcp combined and we have easy pass. Same goes for most 9's hcp hands leaving narrow range for 3♣ (good 10-12).

My vote was pass but I forgot about possiblity of strong 5-5 in partner's hand (I am too used to precision or polish club when it's not possible). I now agree that 3♣ at imps is probably better. We will be often in inferior 3NT after that but I hate missing games

[JLOGIC]

awm, on Aug 24 2010, 03:18 PM, said:

If your expectations are different please say so...

I would always pass with a 2254 or 1354 14 count in a standard system. If I have 11 and 5 clubs over 2C I will often GF. If I have 11 and 4 clubs I will try to bid 2N if possible. If I have 11 and 4 clubs and no heart stopper then I am stuck bidding 3C and missing game opposite 14 sometimes, but game is not cold with only 1 heart stopper and a 4-4 fit.

At some point something has to give when your range is 11-18 or whatever, so I'm not that convinced by the argument that passing with a random 14 will lead us to missing game sometimes. Both players have very wide range and that's a problem with the system, but to me passing with 14 and minimum shape is really normal.

[mikeh]

It wouldn't occur to me to bid 3N over 3♣ with 2=2=5=4 14 counts.

So I will miss some games. Big deal. I don't care what method you use...you will either systemically be forced to miss some games or you will be going down in a lot of bad contracts.

I would bid 3♣ here at both forms of scoring....happily at imps and unhappily at mps.

2♦ didn't even occur to me until I saw several players suggest it...and reading their arguments left me unpersuaded.

I actually think that Fred was being generous when he suggested that partner will bid pass 2♦ only 70% of the time. And when he does, you will be lucky to break even compared to bidding 3♣....whereas if he bids....and thus has values for game opposite this hand....good luck finding the optimum contract with any informed input from partner.

Sort of: if he passes, we're probably in a bad spot...and if he bids, we're probably going to a bad spot. Hmm....not for me, thanks

[JLOGIC]

Josh I think you are underestimating the chance that 2D goes down with 3C making when partner is passing 2D.

I def understand your point that 2D will on average be better than 3N when partner has the range of hands that passes 2D but bids over 3C, but even then it's not like we're gonna be dead in 3N, we don't need it to be that good vul at imps.

On the other hand going down in 2D cold for 3C is a bad result and I think it will happen not infrequently, and that is the most common type of hand (partner being weak and passing 2D/3C).

Sometimes 3C is down and 2D makes but that's pretty rare. Also, partner with a weakish 6-4 playing in 2D is unlikely, they will probably balance with 2H and be cold for it given that they have ~half the deck and we hav a double fit in the minors.

[jdonn]

I think 2♦ makes most of the time so I guess that's where we differ.

Out of curiosity what type of hand would you expect for 2♦ then 3♣ over 2NT by partner?

[fred]

Sorry Josh - I clicked "Edit" instead of "Quote" by mistake (being an admin I can do that) and made a mess of your previous post.

I have deleted that post and reposted under my ID, but your original post has been lost (though I quoted much of it).

Sorry again.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

fred, on Aug 24 2010, 04:09 PM, said:

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.

Quote

Two comments on that. One is that I think "almost always" is a huge exageration,

Maybe I was exaggerating, but I think your "huge" is an exaggeration too. Also, As mikeh pointed out, I was arguably being charitable with my "upwards of 70%"

Quote

since a substantial minority of the time partner is 6-4.

Sure, but conventional wisdom is that partner should have substantial extra strength to bid that way with 6-4 so he often won't be passing 2D when he has that pattern (and I was only talking about hands when partner Passes 2D).

So I don't think "substantial" is accurate. It is certainly much more likely that partner has a minimum 5-5 hand when he Passes 2D - your super-false preference will not look very good in that case (and could be super-bad if partner has weak diamonds, if he loses trump control, or if the defenders are able to get club ruffs).

Quote

My other point is that your 'wrong' contract is a perfectly fine contract that I would expect to make. It's not like choosing a bad contract over a good contract, it's choosing a good contract over a better contract.

Not sure I agree with your judgment here - IMO 3C versus 2D could easily be a good contract over a bad contract (or a good contract over a ridiculous contract if partner can be 1444 or 4-5 in the minors).

But even if both 2D and 3C rate to make, haven't you ever lost a match by 1 IMP?

Quote

(also I somewhat regret advocating it in the BI forum to begin with, which I didn't realize I had done)

I usually don't notice such things either, but in this case I did. That is why I decide to weigh in - I didn't think it was a good thing for the B/Is out there being exposed to several strong players advocating what I thought was a really strange bid in a relatively straightforward and common situation.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Am I losing my mind, or did my entire post which Justin replied to and Fred quoted from vanish? Then again maybe that isn't the worst thing

Oh sorry I see your post before the last one Fred, np. I wish I could do that to more of my posts!

[JLOGIC]

Fred censoring those who disagree with him obv

Jdonn I would usually be 3-4 to bid 2D then 3C I think.

[jdonn]

Agree about 3-4, and I would also add that I think it shows essentially this exact strength. If you were stronger with that shape you'd bid 3♣ or 3♦ over 2♣, if you were weaker you would pass 2♣.