[kgr]

MP's

---

Any bids of South that you don't agree with?

[Free]

1♦ is obvious, 3♦ is also obvious imo, 6♦ is 'vogelpiek' as we say

[Fluffy]

I think 3♦ is an underbid, but I don´t see a clear alternative, so the slight downgrde is fine.

[kgr]

Fluffy, on 2011-December-07, 05:56, said:

I think 3♦ is an underbid, but I don´t see a clear alternative, so the slight downgrde is fine.

That was exactly my thought when I made the bid.
Do you think 6♦ is ok, an underbid or an overbid?

[aguahombre]

If vogelpiek means "I like to keep bidding", then I agree that is what it is.

South chose the limited 3D bid (correctly IMO), North chose 5D, and South decided North was wrong. I have no idea what North actually held, but even if 6D makes that aint the way to bid.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-07, 06:24, said:

If vogelpiek means "I like to keep bidding", then I agree that is what it is.

South chose the limited 3D bid (correctly IMO), North chose 5D, and South decided North was wrong. I have no idea what North actually held, but even if 6D makes that aint the way to bid.

Well since 6♦ is good opposite the right 3 count (stiff heart which is very likely, ♣QJ), it's not unreasonable for partner not to have appreciated how good his hand is.

6♦ is a punt, but I suspect it's going to make a lot more often than it fails. Is partner going to realise how good Jxxx, x, xxx, AQxxx is for example and this is a fine grand. Yes he might have ♠KJxxx, ♦Q, ♣Q and the slam might be poor, but I think it's good a lot more often.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-07, 06:24, said:

If vogelpiek means "I like to keep bidding", then I agree that is what it is.

South chose the limited 3D bid (correctly IMO), North chose 5D, and South decided North was wrong. I have no idea what North actually held, but even if 6D makes that aint the way to bid.

Given that South can see 8 top tricks in a 3NT contract, it is likely that 5♦ will lead to a poor score (~20%) at MPs. I am willing to invest those 20% to try and get an 85% board. If it goes wrong, I have lost 20% (max). If it goes well, I am winning 65%. Therefore, I would estimate that it would be right to bid 6♦ if it makes 1 times in 4.

You are correct that bidding like this is not a thing of beauty, but, then again, MP bidding rarely is.

Rik (IMP freak)

[phil_20686]

I play this as a lebensohl position, so 3D shows extras. That is a useful agreement.

[gnasher]

You're allowed to reevaluate your hand in the light of subsequent bidding. If South was at the top of his range for 3♦, and his hand subsequently improved, it's reasonable for him to bid 6♦.

When South bid 3♦, he didn't know how many hearts or diamonds were opposite, but now he knows that partner is likely to be 1-3 in the reds. He also had good reason to expect spade wastage, but that risk is reduced a bit.

Is that enough to justify 6♦? It needs something like AQxxx x Qxx Qxxx or AKxxx x Qxx xxxx to make 6♦ almost cold. Kxxxx x Qxx QJxx would also do, but it's unreasonable to hope for a fitting jack.

If I were the 3♦ bidder, I could have had x Axx AKJxxx xxx or worse, so I'd consider that I had a lot extra and I'd bid 6♦. If your 3♦ promises more, maybe responder would have bid 4♥ with my first two examples, so pass is enough.

[Fluffy]

I would certainly bid 6♦, perhaps 7 is cold and perhaps 5 is down but to me it looks like the percetage bid.


Andy all your examples contain a "wastage" in the form of ♦Q, partner can have ♦xxx,♣A and singleton heart and there you go, 12 tricks on diamonds 2-1.

Even some hands with 2 diamonds are good enough for slam to roll home.

In fact I think that we should try 5♥ rather than 6♦, after all we are limited by 3♦ so partner can´t go crazy. We might hear the magical 6♣ opposite. We don´t even totally need the heart stiff (♠Jxxx ♥xx ♦Qx ♣AQxxx). Althou this is a hand from wonderland.

[aguahombre]

Gnasher and phil_20686 picked up on the root of this debate ---that the strength South has already conveyed is dependent on good/bad (leben, if you will) having been available instead of 3D to show mere competitive interest.

So, again, we are discussing what to do with different frames of reference.

[gnasher]

Kgr didn't say we were playing Good/Bad, so I assume we're not.

[kgr]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-07, 09:52, said:

Gnasher and phil_20686 picked up on the root of this debate ---that the strength South has already conveyed is dependent on good/bad (leben, if you will) having been available instead of 3D to show mere competitive interest.

So, again, we are discussing what to do with different frames of reference.

2NT iso 3D would have been natural.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2011-December-07, 10:11, said:

Kgr didn't say we were playing Good/Bad, so I assume we're not.

The point was that my "vote" and strong wording against 6D was influenced by the thought that I had shown more strength previously, which perhaps I hadn't. 6D looks a lot better if good/bad wasn't possible.

[kgr]

MP's

---

North had the perfect hand

[JLOGIC]

I think bidding 3D is ludicrous. We have a great hand, just bid 3N, which assuming 2N is natural shows good long diamonds + stoppers.

It is obvious to bid over 5D for the reasons stated. Not bidding 5H is lazy. We are limited by our 3D bid, our hand cannot be better. If partner cooperates with trying for 7 by bidding 6C, I think it is likely percentage to bid 7. Remember, we are limited by 3D, partner does not have to cooperate by bidding 6C when he has the ace. Even if you are too worried about the third round of clubs to bid 7 over 6C, it is possible for partner to just jump to 7 over 5H which will certainly be right, or to bid 5S-5N-7D or something. The lead is very unlikely to matter, so I am not worried about giving away info.

[JLOGIC]

and yes I know I posted after partners hand was posted, sorry, but I hope you'll believe me when I saw the hand my first reaction was "wtf 3D" then "wtf aren't we bidding 5H" but I will admit I thought we just had an easy 7D bid if partner bid 6C over 5H at the time which is not exactly true. Still, it seems "free" to give partner the chance to bid 7 at some point if he has the right hand, and I still think it's right to bid 7 over 5H-6C.

[Cyberyeti]

My reaction to partner's hand was WTF why X first up, this is a 2♠ bid by our methods. With 6142, partner doesn't even need the Q♣

[kgr]

JLOGIC, on 2011-December-07, 14:59, said:

I think bidding 3D is ludicrous. We have a great hand, just bid 3N, which assuming 2N is natural shows good long diamonds + stoppers.

It is obvious to bid over 5D for the reasons stated. Not bidding 5H is lazy. We are limited by our 3D bid, our hand cannot be better. If partner cooperates with trying for 7 by bidding 6C, I think it is likely percentage to bid 7. Remember, we are limited by 3D, partner does not have to cooperate by bidding 6C when he has the ace. Even if you are too worried about the third round of clubs to bid 7 over 6C, it is possible for partner to just jump to 7 over 5H which will certainly be right, or to bid 5S-5N-7D or something. The lead is very unlikely to matter, so I am not worried about giving away info.

I wasn't sure if 3NT would show this hand or if partner would take it like that. Without the 2H, 3NT would be 4cS and 18-19 for us. But probably after 2H it should be to play. I'll clarify this with my partner.

JLOGIC, on 2011-December-07, 15:00, said:

and yes I know I posted after partners hand was posted, sorry, but I hope you'll believe me when I saw the hand my first reaction was "wtf 3D" then "wtf aren't we bidding 5H" but I will admit I thought we just had an easy 7D bid if partner bid 6C over 5H at the time which is not exactly true. Still, it seems "free" to give partner the chance to bid 7 at some point if he has the right hand, and I still think it's right to bid 7 over 5H-6C.

I do . (from your posts on this your I always have the impression that you rather look at the bridge question then at all hands).
..And I agree that 5H (after the limiting 3D) is a better bid then 6D.

[kgr]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-December-07, 15:16, said:

My reaction to partner's hand was WTF why X first up, this is a 2♠ bid by our methods. With 6142, partner doesn't even need the Q♣

In our methods 2♠=5c♠&4c♦ and weak (6-9); 2♦=6c♠ weak (4-7).
He could have lied a little and have chosen both of these if he wanted.