[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Feb 19 2008, 01:33 AM, said:

Because I think partner has 5-9 hcp.  And I think that two of those hcp are likely to be the queen of diamonds, and that (depending on the jack of diamonds) would make it 2-7 hcp outside of diamonds.

This is more conjecture than logic. He has 2-7 hcp outside of diamonds, unless he doesn't have the queen of diamonds after all. Which tells us...nothing useful.

Quote

It also makes me nervous that partner didn't double: either he doesn't have a 4 card major, or he was too weak to make a call.

He probably has no four card major, and I don't see why that information would make you nervous.

Quote

If he has a hand like  xxx xx QJxx Kxxx, which I consider typical, we're down 1.  Of course, they're likely to make 5♣, so it's not like 3♦ is a horrible place to be.

I don't consider a minimum with 100% of it's values wasted on offense typical. Nor do I see it makes much difference, as one of the opponents already incorporated diamond shortness into his evaluation.

Quote

On the other hand, he could have Kxx xx QJxx Kxxx, which would be a max, but then they bid 4♣ and make it, so what have we accomplished?

That it is very likely they won't bid it! People don't just merrily compete to the 4 level in minors all the time. You are not going to 3 with six diamonds and a club void, but they are going to 4 with worse?

Quote

I hope you're not arguing that 3♦ doesn't convey any useful information to them.

You are correct, I did not make that argument. I will say it conveys very little reliable information of any kind. There are many hands with five or even four diamonds where I compete to 3 here.

Quote

Maybe you have a different range for 2♦ there than I do, but the way I play it we cannot own the hand.

We have the higher suit. If the strength is equally split or nearly so, we own the hand. (11+9)/40 = ....

Quote

I think the hands where 4♣ goes down for them are...rather unlikely.

So you use this logic to let them play 3♣?

Quote

I also think it's unlikely that we'll buy the hand in 3♦.

That is where you are wrong.

Quote

if you're thinking of 3♦ as a wtp bid without considering where the auction may go next, well, I beg that you reconsider.

I considered it very carefully! And too often it is going to 3♦ p p p to seriously consider anything else.

[jtfanclub]

gwnn, on Feb 19 2008, 01:35 AM, said:

So a typical hand has no help in the majors and club wastage. How did you come up with that?

Because if partner has a 4 card major any any serious points I'd expect an X, not a 2♦ call, even with 4 diamonds.

Because if he has 4 clubs and 3 hearts, and if there are 4 outstanding club honors and 3 outstanding heart honors, he's more likely to have club honors than heart ones. Not sure why it matters: xx Kxx QJxx xxxx they make 5 clubs, and you're hoping to buy it for 3♦?

As for keeping them from finding 3NT, I don't get it. Do people actually bid 2♦ with three? If not, then I'll be overjoyed if they bid 3NT. That means if one of them has a diamond stopper, the other one is void. I think the bad club split along with my long diamonds will kill 3NT, even when 5♣ would make.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

This is more conjecture than logic. He has 2-7 hcp outside of diamonds, unless he doesn't have the queen of diamonds after all. Which tells us...nothing useful.

Well, he's 4/7 to have the Queen of diamonds, 4/7 to have the Jack of diamonds, and not even half of those odds to have any other honor. And that's assuming he has only 4♦.

Quote

I don't consider a minimum with 100% of it's values wasted on offense typical. Nor do I see it makes much difference, as one of the opponents already incorporated diamond shortness into his evaluation.

Or both. Be pretty funny if you passed and they bid too high because they each had a diamond singleton.

Quote

That it is very likely they won't bid it! People don't just merrily compete to the 4 level in minors all the time. You are not going to 3 with six diamonds and a club void, but they are going to 4 with worse?

I'm not at all sure they have worse, but yeah. If neither of you have game, then the lawful thing to do is bid 4♣ and dare you to bid 4♦, right? You may be right, you might buy it in 3. I may be colored by the fact that I've seen our hands, so I know their right bid is 4♣ in almost all situations.

Quote

You are correct, I did not make that argument. I will say it conveys very little reliable information of any kind. There are many hands with five or even four diamonds where I compete to 3 here.

Woof. Well, if the opponents know you bid 3♦ with 4, I stand corrected. I will generally have 5 diamonds and club shortness, or 6 diamonds. If 3♦ doesn't say much about your hand, then I guess the only worry is it gives RHO another call.

Quote

We have the higher suit. If the strength is equally split or nearly so, we own the hand. (11+9)/40 = ....

I used to think of that as owning the hand, I don't any more. Maybe I should go back. The LAWful bid seems to usually be with these sorts of hand for the lower ranking suit to bid over the higher ranking suit, and give the higher ranking suit a guess. Bid 3♥ over 2♠, or 4♣ over 3♦. The higher ranking suit can take it away, but should it?

Quote

I considered it very carefully!

I know, and I'm sorry if I misphrased it to imply otherwise.

I don't like it when I get a 'wtp' answer to a question that I think deserves more thought. The problem is that if I simply accept it as '3♦ wtp' then I'm likely to try to apply it in the wrong areas. I'd rather present the argument for what I honestly think is another legitimate bid and watch you destroy it: that's how I learn bridge, and I'm hoping that other people learn more from it too. If they don't, I ought to be paying you- I doubt I'm teaching you anything. You certainly did a good job destroying the pass this time- I'll bid 3♦ with this hand, should it come up.

I'll just make one last request- can you make a sample hand which would go:

1♦ (4+) (2♣) 2♦ (3♣
3♦

with only 4 diamonds? I need to add that to my repertoire.

Thanks.

[Cascade]

jtfanclub, on Feb 19 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

If he has a hand like xxx xx QJxx Kxxx, which I consider typical, we're down 1.

This is very close to a pass for me.

It is very far from typical.

[david_c]

Thanks folks. The actual deal is not exactly what you might be expecting.

Scoring: IMP

---

Yes, RHO has somewhat underbid her hand! I bid 3♦ which gave her another chance. (LHO passed, and presumably would have passed the cold slam in 3♣.) I need to either pass 3♣, or bid 4♦/5♦ which might keep them out, or find the good save over whatever club contract they bid. Are any of these realistic? It was difficult to say when what happened at the table was not really bridge as we know it.

This board was a complete disaster for our team of eight. At our table we scored -640 defending 5♣ on a heart lead. Our other NS pair scored -300: well done, that was a good save against 6♣. One opposing NS pair made 4♠; the other was just one off at the 5-level. Ouch!

[jtfanclub]

david_c, on Feb 19 2008, 04:05 PM, said:

Thanks folks. The actual deal is not exactly what you might be expecting.

Well, it was pretty much what I was expecting. The rest of the planet obviously expected something very different.

RHO has a tough call over 2♦. 2♥ and 2♠ are probably nonforcing, no-trump is right out, and the hand isn't strong enough for a 3♦ GF, at least not if her partner regularly overcalls on crap. I think the choices are X and 3♣, and X might have some special meaning for them, I don't know.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Feb 20 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

david_c, on Feb 19 2008, 04:05 PM, said:

Thanks folks. The actual deal is not exactly what you might be expecting.

Well, it was pretty much what I was expecting. The rest of the planet obviously expected something very different.

RHO has a tough call over 2♦. 2♥ and 2♠ are probably nonforcing, no-trump is right out, and the hand isn't strong enough for a 3♦ GF, at least not if her partner regularly overcalls on crap. I think the choices are X and 3♣, and X might have some special meaning for them, I don't know.

You expected 3♣ on three aces and four card support? vwd

Do you also expect west to pass 3♣ when he belongs in game opposite an ace less than you apparently think it shows?

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Feb 20 2008, 03:05 PM, said:

You expected 3♣ on three aces and four card support? vwd

Do you also expect west to pass 3♣ when he belongs in game opposite an ace less than you apparently think it shows?

No, I thought 10-11, not 12. But maybe their overcalls are trashier than mine.

I suppose there's a chance that if I pass West will pass too, but I don't give it good odds.