[Trinidad]

Winstonm, on 2016-July-18, 15:14, said:

I think 4D overstates the hand so I'm left with either 4H or 4S.

That is only true if 4♦ promises more than game. I think 4♦ shows the same playing strength as 4M (possibly less because of the flexibility it offers).

Rik

[1eyedjack]

3S is right if it does not get passed out. Trouble is the higher the level that this takes place, the higher the likelihood of it being passed out. You KNOW that you want to be in 4M. The cost times likelihood of partner making a wrong 5 level decision is lower in my view than the prospect of languishing in 3S

[The_Badger]

hi Rowland,

To me, 3♠ is a BridgeLoser's bid [I'm really surprised that the majority of players on BridgeWinners opted for this.] There's a likelihood that the auction will die in 3♠. It ain't forcing. Period.

And there's no indication that the 1♦ opener can compete further, and South with his pre-emptive 3♦ hand really isn't in a strong position to gauge whether competing further or sacrificing is an option.

So if we don't drive to game with 4♦ we might not get another chance. North had an opportunity to bid again to muddy the waters, so let him decide at the 5 level vulnerable whether he wants to sacrifice against 4♥ or 4♠.

Just a small final consideration, over our 4♦ bid South might by either "Passing" or "Doubling" help North gauge whether a sacrifice is prudent, but only very experienced players might have this "Inference Bid" in their armoury.

[billw55]

I am less worried about ops bidding 5♦ than some others are. One op already preempted; the other passed an opportunity to do so; opener is likely to have some defense; and they are vul at IMPs, not a great time to take a dive.

[Caitlynne]

I am bidding 3S. 4D could work out - and if it does, it will be because of good luck - but it is a huge overbid that can cause partner to turn a plus score into a minus score. It is the type of bid that VERY poor players routinely make and later congratulate themselves for when it works (as it far too often does) wallowing in ignorance of the disaster that it might have created.

But 4D does not make allowance for the fact that the range of possibilities for partner's hand is huge. Double might be made on a light shapely hand or a good to very powerful balanced hand or a sound to rock solid good shapely hand. If you will bid 4D on junk and a good hand, how will partner know when to move?

That is, for example, how will partner know you have KTxxx, xxxxx, x, xx instead of KJxx, Axxx, xxx, Qx? What should partner do if he/she should hold something like AQxx, Kxx, x, AKJxx? Opposite your hand, partner will surely bid 4S and that will be enough; indeed, it might even (i.e., is fairly likely to) go down when the Ace of hearts is with the opening bidder and the opponents can arrange to lead through the King of hearts (which they can almost always arrange to do but sometimes will fail to do). Opposite the second hand, 6S is almost unbeatable.

[GrahamJson]

With 55 in the majors opposite a TOX it seems automatic to bid game unless you chose to stay lower for tactical reasons. However I do see that partner might expect more in high cards if you were to bid 4D whereas a 4S bid does sound more like a shutout. On balance I would bid 4D, but it is close.

[Phil]

4D.

[The_Badger]

Caitlynne says:
I am bidding 3S. 4D could work out - and if it does, it will be because of good luck - but it is a huge overbid that can cause partner to turn a plus score into a minus score. It is the type of bid that VERY poor players routinely make and later congratulate themselves for when it works (as it far too often does) wallowing in ignorance of the disaster that it might have created.

I totally disagree with that statement: "It is the type of bid that VERY poor players routinely make...etc, etc, what total codswallop!

Given that there are many commentators on here who are very experienced who are advocating bidding 4♦ too, shows your total ignorance. Are they all POOR players? Obviously not!

Yes, I do agree that 4♦ could go wrong, however, I am willing to take the chance that partner will exercise some discretion given that he has opponents who have opened and responded on the first round of bidding, and a partner who hasn't.

4♦ to me says "Just choose. I have both majors. We have a double fit and I reckon we can make game with you as declarer."

[Winstonm]

Trinidad, on 2016-July-19, 00:52, said:

That is only true if 4♦ promises more than game. I think 4♦ shows the same playing strength as 4M (possibly less because of the flexibility it offers).

Rik

Yes, but I am for the conservative route unless the sequence has been discussed - theoretically, I think 4D should simply say: pick a major.

[msjennifer]

The hand has 8 losers when played in a major.This hand has passed once already.West has doubled and should have a decent hand at three level .It Is not too much to expect 6 loser hand (HCP don't matter) 8+6 =14 and 18-14=4. So East should bid 4 D.May not work once in a while, but at least there is some logic behind it.

[msjennifer]

I shall put the problem other way.Suppose NS were silent and West opens 1 NT (15-17). Now what ? I feel at least a few will bid

4H/S may not be directly but indirectly with an invitational 3 H after a transfer to spade.

[miamijd]

Tough choice. I think 3S and 4D are reasonable. I would bid 3S without a lot of confidence.

3S is right on values, because partner doesn't guarantee a big hand here. He might have something like Axx Kxxx x AQxxx. Hands like those have to compete in these sorts of auctions or you end up getting robbed blind

On the hand I posited, 3S almost certainly won't make; 4H or 4S will likely go down at least two -- quite possibly three -- and quite possibly doubled.

4D will be the winner when partner has a really good hand and is 43 or 34 in the majors. Now you'll get to game in the right strain. It might also win when partner has a good but not great X (one where he would not have raised 3S to game) and game makes. Something like AQxx AJTx xx Axx, perhaps.

The reason I would settle for 3S is that the auction isn't over yet. If partner can't raise to 4S, we might not have game. Moreover, the opponents, with at least 10 diamonds between them, are likely to bid 4D if we can make game (with few high cards in the majors, they will tend to bid on; if they have secondary major cards, they might leave 3S, but that might be a good thing for us). Then I can bid 4H.

I think it's pretty close, though.

Cheers,
mike

[MrAce]

The_Badger, on 2016-July-19, 15:15, said:

Caitlynne says:
I am bidding 3S. 4D could work out - and if it does, it will be because of good luck - but it is a huge overbid that can cause partner to turn a plus score into a minus score. It is the type of bid that VERY poor players routinely make and later congratulate themselves for when it works (as it far too often does) wallowing in ignorance of the disaster that it might have created.

I totally disagree with that statement: "It is the type of bid that VERY poor players routinely make...etc, etc, what total codswallop!

Given that there are many commentators on here who are very experienced who are advocating bidding 4♦ too, shows your total ignorance. Are they all POOR players? Obviously not!

Yes, I do agree that 4♦ could go wrong, however, I am willing to take the chance that partner will exercise some discretion given that he has opponents who have opened and responded on the first round of bidding, and a partner who hasn't.

4♦ to me says "Just choose. I have both majors. We have a double fit and I reckon we can make game with you as declarer."

It is ENOUGH! You have been calling names to the people who chose 3♠. You are free to bid what you want and defend that idea. Stop calling names though! There are many things that you can not even see and things that you say which does make no sense, but I will not do the favor of explaining you due to your behavior!

This poll was made in BW.
Majority voted for 3♠. Majority of worldclass and/or experts voted for 3♠. Among those, the current national team player Mr. Diamond, Joshua Donn
That does not of course make the 3♠ bid a perfect one. That does not mean you can not criticize it. But you can try to be respectful. It should not be hard to do so when players with much more credits than you will ever have, such as Josh or Justin or Phil or Wank can do it without talking the way you do. It just makes you sound weak and inexperienced!

4♦ has a lot of positive things and negative things in it. It mostly depends on how the auction will proceed. Whether your 4♦ will crate a forcing pass sequence or not if they compete and lot more things that I really do not want to get into. I think neither 4♦ nor 3♠ is losing bridge, loser's bid nor those who bid 3♠ are poor players!

[1eyedjack]

MrAce, on 2016-July-20, 06:15, said:

It is ENOUGH! You have been calling names to the people who chose 3♠.

That is not how I read his post. The only individual that he was attacking was Caitlynne, and only because Caitlynne in turn had been accusing 4D bidders as being "VERY poor players".

Yes the 3S bid is the majority in the poll. But not what I would call a huge majority. The total number of responders was fairly modest, and I recognise one or two good players in the 4D camp.

[MrAce]

1eyedjack, on 2016-July-20, 06:36, said:

That is not how I read his post. The only individual that he was attacking was Caitlynne, and only because Caitlynne in turn had been accusing 4D bidders as being "VERY poor players".

Yes the 3S bid is the majority in the poll. But not what I would call a huge majority. The total number of responders was fairly modest, and I recognise one or two good players in the 4D camp.

I am against calling "poor players" to 4♦ bidders as well. But this is the 2nd time Badger is using it in same topic. That's why I said it is enough.

The_Badger, on 2016-July-19, 02:48, said:

hi Rowland,
To me, 3♠ is a BridgeLoser's bid .........

[The_Badger]

1eyedjack, on 2016-July-20, 06:36, said:

That is not how I read his post. The only individual that he was attacking was Caitlynne, and only because Caitlynne in turn had been accusing 4D bidders as being "VERY poor players".

Yes the 3S bid is the majority in the poll. But not what I would call a huge majority. The total number of responders was fairly modest, and I recognise one or two good players in the 4D camp.

Apologies Timo (MrAce). BridgeLosers/BridgeWinners was just a play on words, typical British satire. The emoji was my way of saying "don't take this seriously, folks". Everyone is entitled to their point of view.

I only laid into Caitlynne on this forum as her post was really derogatory, like if you bid 4♦ you are a total putz (to use an Americanism). That, to me, was unnecessary rudeness personified.

I have over 35 years' experience of bridge under my belt, including playing with and against some world championship players, and plenty of grandmasters and life masters. To me, 3♠ doesn't look quite right: it lets the bidding "hang in the air" and probably puts more pressure on partner, than on the opponents (especially the 1♦ opener who will have a fair idea whether 4♠ - or even 4♥ - is on.) That's why I'm not keen on it as the 1♦ opener may just let the contract rest there, in 3♠, afraid that if he bids again, a major suit game will certainly be reached by East/West.

[MrAce]

The_Badger, on 2016-July-20, 08:03, said:

Apologies Timo (MrAce). BridgeLosers/BridgeWinners was just a play on words, typical British satire. The emoji was my way of saying "don't take this seriously, folks". Everyone is entitled to their point of view.

I only laid into Caitlynne on this forum as her post was really derogatory, like if you bid 4♦ you are a total putz (to use an Americanism). That, to me, was unnecessary rudeness personified.

I have over 35 years' experience of bridge under my belt, including playing with and against some world championship players, and plenty of grandmasters and life masters. To me, 3♠ doesn't look quite right: it lets the bidding "hang in the air" and probably puts more pressure on partner, than on the opponents (especially the 1♦ opener who will have a fair idea whether 4♠ - or even 4♥ - is on.) That's why I'm not keen on it as the 1♦ opener may just let the contract rest there, in 3♠, afraid that if he bids again, a major suit game will certainly be reached by East/West.

I am sorry.


For some reason I took you the wrong way. Your last reply made it clear that it was me who was being rude. Apologies!

[Jinksy]

I would limp into 3♠. I like the general principle of bidding a level too high to establish the right fit, but I feel like 4♦ would be bidding two levels high. What does partner do on this auction with eg Qxx AQx xx AQJxx?

Apparently I'm old before my time

[kuhchung]

wait, are people just allowed to kiss and make up on BBF? that's not what i come here for!

[billw55]

Jinksy, on 2016-July-20, 11:05, said:

I would limp into 3♠. I like the general principle of bidding a level too high to establish the right fit, but I feel like 4♦ would be bidding two levels high. What does partner do on this auction with eg Qxx AQx xx AQJxx?

Apparently I'm old before my time

Sure, but that is near the worst hand that partner could have, and 4M is probably only down 1 (we have a decent map of the high cards). I think 4M will have play fairly often, and this is vul at IMPs after all.