[bftboy]

---

MPs. P's 2♠ bid should be disciplined 1st seat vul. If the poll doesn't format correctly, my apologies. Am curious as to whether you choose to "stay fixed," or to attempt to escape, and if so, how.

[mike777]

2nt=takeout/scramble cannot be natural.

[655321]

I would bid 3♦. We aren't making anything, but perhaps 3♦X will be cheaper, or perhaps they decide to bid on instead of doubling.

I wouldn't give partner a choice between the minors, 3♣X on a trump lead could be murder.

[rhm]

mike777, on 2010-December-31, 16:08, said:

2nt=takeout/scramble cannot be natural.

True but this is not the issue. The issue is, whether to stay in 3♣ doubled when partner bids 3♣. You can not correct to 3♦ since partner may then "correct" to ♥.
I think the options are to pass or to bid 3♦.
I prefer 3♦.

Rainer Herrmann

[mike777]

rhm, on 2010-December-31, 17:11, said:

True but this is not the issue. The issue is, whether to stay in 3♣ doubled when partner bids 3♣. You can not correct to 3♦ since partner may then "correct" to ♥.
I think the options are to pass or to bid 3♦.
I prefer 3♦.

Rainer Herrmann

ok 3d

[nige1]

655321, on 2010-December-31, 16:21, said:

I would bid 3♦. We aren't making anything, but perhaps 3♦X will be cheaper, or perhaps they decide to bid on instead of doubling. I wouldn't give partner a choice between the minors, 3♣X on a trump lead could be murder.

rhm, on 2010-December-31, 17:11, said:

I think the options are to pass or to bid 3♦.I prefer 3♦.

mike777, on 2010-December-31, 18:35, said:

ok 3d

Snap

[the hog]

rhm, on 2010-December-31, 17:11, said:

True but this is not the issue. The issue is, whether to stay in 3♣ doubled when partner bids 3♣. You can not correct to 3♦ since partner may then "correct" to ♥.
I think the options are to pass or to bid 3♦.
I prefer 3♦.

Rainer Herrmann

I agree with this. I think the Ds are pretty decent and would pull to 3D; you can't really bid 2NT for the reasons Rainer suggested.

[whereagles]

I dunno... I think it's a toss between 2NT (intending to stick to 3♣ dbled, of course) or 3♦.

[Siegmund]

I voted 2NT but have no strong feeling between 2N and 3D. With so many intermediates in diamonds 3D may well be better. If they were xxxxxx and xxxxx I'd be more confident in 2N.

[mikeh]

3♦: not close.

About the only time that finding clubs will be right is when partner has 4 of them...not impossible, but way against the odds.

In the meantime, if you show a 2-suiter, you are playing in clubs opposite 3-3/2-2/2-3/1-3 minors on an auction that screams for trump plays by the defence.

IOW, showing a 2-suiter will virtually always result in a horrific score...often worse than 2♠, where at least he might score some spade spots if he has good texture.

Passing 2♠ is giving up. I don't care how good his hand/suit may be..passing 2♠ means accepting 1100 on a good day.

Meanwhile, bidding 3♦ not only offers some chance, however modest, of finding a smaller minus than does passing, but also offers some chance that the opps will bid 3N instead of doubling.

We can all see that the odds are high that the opps should be doubling here, almost regardless of their holdings....but they don't know that. LHO knows only that his partner has a penalty pass of 2♠. He may hold short(ish) diamonds and decide that bidding 3N, confident that with this skills and the informative auction, will get a good result.

Put another way: I think bidding 3♦ offers us the only realistic hope that they will make a mistake.

Lest anyone think that hoping for errors by the opps is silly: I used to play 10-12 1N, including in high-level games, and it is amazing how often even good players end up bidding 3N rather than doubling. if your opps always do the right thing, give up the game. it's too tough. In the real world, when you are facing a disaster and have some chance of wriggling....wriggle away...the opps may rescue you.

[Phil]

3♦. If I were sure LHO was doubling 2N, and I could get partner to pass with 2-2 in the minors, but bid 3♣ with 1-3, then I would bid 2N. Unfortunately, LHO should pass, and partner should bid 3♣ with 2-2, so I'm not accomplishing anything by bidding 2N. Now a direct 3♦ actually has a chance of escaping the axe, since I have such great spots, and the bloodthirsty opponents may change their mind and think 3N is better. However, if I bid 2N, and pull a doubled 3♣ to 3♦ there is a 1000% chance this is getting hit, so its not a free shot.

Pard, its going to get bloody, go get a snack while I salvage something from this.

[JLOGIC]

Phil, on 2011-January-04, 19:51, said:

3♦. If I were sure LHO was doubling 2N, and I could get partner to pass with 2-2 in the minors, but bid 3♣ with 1-3, then I would bid 2N.

IMO you should strongly reconsider that! Playing in clubs opposite 1-3 seems like a complete disaster. 4 trump tricks is better than 2.

[robertb]

bftboy, on 2010-December-31, 16:07, said:

---

MPs. P's 2♠ bid should be disciplined 1st seat vul. If the poll doesn't format correctly, my apologies. Am curious as to whether you choose to "stay fixed," or to attempt to escape, and if so, how.

Do the opponents have a heart slam that they may find if I bid here? It seems quite plausible to me.

Diamonds are likely to be one trick better than spades, but two tricks? I'm not seeing it. And I can certainly imagine hands where we have the same number of tricks in both contracts.

I'm going to hope that partner has a suit that can take 3 or 4 tricks -- surely not that unlikely for a first seat vulnerable bid? -- and pass. Maybe the opponents will have trouble working out which suits to stay away from if we conceal partner's hand? If partner has slow spade tricks, I'm not going to upgrade the contract by playing in diamonds; if he has fast ones, I may never access them.

[Fluffy]

♦♦♦

[Free]

2NT

[Phil]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-04, 20:51, said:

IMO you should strongly reconsider that! Playing in clubs opposite 1-3 seems like a complete disaster. 4 trump tricks is better than 2.

Yes, we will take four trump tricks in diamonds, that is true. I'm not so sure that 1-3 is a complete disaster however. It depends on how clubs split, and how good partner's clubs are, and how they choose to defend. For instance, if they start drawing my trump, I rate to take my long clubs, and my four diamonds.

Agree that if clubs are foul, this could be in 1700 land, although the IMP scale forgives these deep undertricks.

[mikeh]

Phil, on 2011-January-05, 10:34, said:

Yes, we will take four trump tricks in diamonds, that is true. I'm not so sure that 1-3 is a complete disaster however. It depends on how clubs split, and how good partner's clubs are, and how they choose to defend. For instance, if they start drawing my trump, I rate to take my long clubs, and my four diamonds.

Agree that if clubs are foul, this could be in 1700 land, although the IMP scale forgives these deep undertricks.

If they draw 3 rounds of trump and revert to hearts (or maybe even spades) you probably can't establish your diamonds in time to enjoy them. You'll maybe get 2 clubs and a couple of spades....plus perhaps a trick in the wash. Whereas in diamonds, you rate to start with 4 diamond tricks and there is even a chance that they may cash clubs for you...unless they know you have a club side suit.

I think the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of diamonds when partner is 1=3 minors.

[Phil]

mikeh, on 2011-January-05, 11:00, said:

If they draw 3 rounds of trump and revert to hearts (or maybe even spades) you probably can't establish your diamonds in time to enjoy them. You'll maybe get 2 clubs and a couple of spades....plus perhaps a trick in the wash. Whereas in diamonds, you rate to start with 4 diamond tricks and there is even a chance that they may cash clubs for you...unless they know you have a club side suit.

I think the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of diamonds when partner is 1=3 minors.

I know, this is why I qualified it with "it depends...on how good partner's clubs are". The defense isn't drawing three trump and tapping when pard has ♣Kxx, QJx or maybe Qxx or QTx.

[JLOGIC]

Phil, on 2011-January-05, 11:09, said:

I know, this is why I qualified it with "it depends...on how good partner's clubs are". The defense isn't drawing three trump and tapping when pard has ♣Kxx, QJx or maybe Qxx or QTx.

Why not, won't clubs often be 4-1? I mean yeah if partner has 3 good clubs and clubs are 3-2 you might break even by playing in clubs instead of diamonds... or you might get absolutely soul crushed in the not-unlikely event that clubs are 4-1 and they just go club club club.... win the diamond, cash a club, spade... start setting up their spades while running hearts. Again you get 2 club tricks and ??????????, it could just be ridiculously bloody.

[gnasher]

Phil, is this the sort of layout you're hoping for?

---

Playing in diamonds, they lead three rounds of hearts. We ruff and play clubs. They win the first or second round and play a spade through dummy. We win and play another club. They force with a spade. We play a diamond. RHO wins and forces us with something. The hand falls apart, but we've made only four trumps and two black tricks. (Not sure if we could have done one better.)

Playing in clubs, they lead three rounds of hearts. We ruff and play a diamond. RHO wins and plays another heart. We ruff in hand, presumably, and take a ruffing finesse in diamonds, which holds. Now what? It's looking quite tricky to get as many as six tricks now.