[AL78]

Another reason I lose at bridge, my judgement on the competitive hands is crap.

5 card majors, strong NT, 1♦ is at least four cards.

---

3♦ was a bid to the level of the fit pre-emptive raise. Disasterous, two down, -500, 3.8%. Should have just raised to 2♦.

[gszes]

This is a scoring issue. -500 (down 2 x) is worse than any game score and -200 (down 1 x) is worse than any partial the opps might score. When you look at your hand you can easily imagine 5 tricks. It is not unreasonable to expect 4 hcp in dia in your partners hand. That leaves around 8/10 (if min) IN FRONT OF the doubler. This means there is a significant chance those 8/10 are doomed to score far less than normal. You need partner to score 3 tricks outside diamonds to beat any GAME the opps have (if partner can take 3 tricks outside dia + 1 dia trick means game is almost impossible for the opps. That means the ONLY way a dia preempt can work is if it makes OR goes down only 1 undoubled. This thinking should allow you to bid only 2d next time or even pass. If you reverse the vulnerability, 3d looks a ton more appealing.

[sfi]

South's pass of 3DX is extraordinary. That decision had more to do with your score than anything you did.

[FelicityR]

sfi, on 2020-September-13, 19:48, said:

South's pass of 3DX is extraordinary. That decision had more to do with your score than anything you did.

I agree entirely. So you play a session of bridge and one result doesn't go your way because of what the opponents did or didn't do. You just have to forget about that board and move onto the next. It is no different to when your opponents bid a good major suit slam that makes because of accurate bidding when all the other opponents are just in game plus two only.

How would you have felt if the hand was slightly different and the opponents erred and 3♦X came home for 9 tricks for a complete top? The trick with bidding is consistency. If you keep on doing what you are supposed to do - raising to the level of the fit as a pre-emptive action - then it will work over 95% of the time. You didn't do anything wrong.

How I describe this hand is 'a freak'. Partner has an opening bid but probably doesn't because West's hand is poor, even in third position, especially vulnerable. I'm not blaming your partner either though. Playing a strong NT I'm opening it 1♦, too, as passing is not what you do, but looking at it more as lead-directional than anything else. Then you have the opponents' hands: a 2♣ opener opposite a near-Yarborough without an outside entry.

It's just an unlucky board, nothing more.

[DavidKok]

Also note that NS can make 4♥ (ruff the second diamond and play the spades from the top, if West takes the third round and continues a diamond you ruff and play the ♥Q, letting dummies ♥10 control a possible fourth round of diamonds). But it is understandable that not many pairs would bid and make this, and even then at this vulnerability that will score worse than +500.

At this vulnerability and at matchpoint scoring there is something to be said for bidding more cautiously, because you are inviting both the -200 partscore killer and -500 game killer. At IMPs or any vulnerability your 3♦ is absolutely mandatory, and even on your given board it might very well be the percentage action since opps won't know what to do.

[AL78]

FelicityR, on 2020-September-14, 00:42, said:

I agree entirely. So you play a session of bridge and one result doesn't go your way because of what the opponents did or didn't do. You just have to forget about that board and move onto the next. It is no different to when your opponents bid a good major suit slam that makes because of accurate bidding when all the other opponents are just in game plus two only.

How would you have felt if the hand was slightly different and the opponents erred and 3♦X came home for 9 tricks for a complete top? The trick with bidding is consistency. If you keep on doing what you are supposed to do - raising to the level of the fit as a pre-emptive action - then it will work over 95% of the time. You didn't do anything wrong.

How I describe this hand is 'a freak'. Partner has an opening bid but probably doesn't because West's hand is poor, even in third position, especially vulnerable. I'm not blaming your partner either though. Playing a strong NT I'm opening it 1♦, too, as passing is not what you do, but looking at it more as lead-directional than anything else. Then you have the opponents' hands: a 2♣ opener opposite a near-Yarborough without an outside entry.

It's just an unlucky board, nothing more.

I think I was too aggressive for two reasons:

1. Unfavourable vulnerability increases the risk of the horrible -200 score (or worse).
2. My hand is on the flat side, and because we play a strong NT, partner could have a minimal weak NT hand, which means she is going to struggle with minimal ruffing potential in a three level suit contract, even with at least a nine card fit. It would be different if we were playing a weak NT, because partner would either hold a long diamond suit or a strong balanced hand, both of which have greater trick taking potential in a suit contract than a weak NT hand.

I was unlucky South converted a takeout double to penalty with a near yarborough, I would have bid 4♣ then North would likely raise to game which makes. Interestingly, if you put a couple of North's club honors into the South hand, they have 6♣ on (I think).

[sfi]

AL78, on 2020-September-14, 02:24, said:

I was unlucky South converted a takeout double to penalty with a near yarborough, I would have bid 4♣ then North would likely raise to game which makes.

I don't think it does - even 4C is in danger on repeated diamond plays.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure I would have opened with West's hand. On the auction, I would have bid 3!D with East's hand. <shrug> Stuff happens. Next hand!

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2020-September-17, 07:58, said:

I'm not sure I would have opened with West's hand. On the auction, I would have bid 3!D with East's hand. <shrug> Stuff happens. Next hand!

I think I'd have passed because I'd have had to open 1N and the double would be utterly predictable, that said we'd play in 2♦ or more likely opps would play in 3 or 4 clubs or hearts

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-September-17, 08:14, said:

I think I'd have passed because I'd have had to open 1N and the double would be utterly predictable, that said we'd play in 2♦ or more likely opps would play in 3 or 4 clubs or hearts

Why would you have to open 1NT? Playing Acol, 1♦ is a much better choice, planning to pass any response. In first or second seat though, there is a good argument for treating the hand as a bad 11 (or worse) and passing.

The reason this went wrong though is down to the choices of East and South rather than the opening bid. Not much we can do about South so let us think about East. First of all, 3♦ is a perfectly reasonable call and I would have no hesitation in making it in an unbalanced diamond system. There are some points against it though, most particularly the adverse vulnerability, the lack of any shortage and the low ODR. This is where the expression "level of the fit" can be a little tricky. If you hold a 4s333 (s=support) then you should generally treat it as 3 card support for the purposes of the LoTT. The same applies to a lesser extent with 5s(332) - sometimes it is a good idea to downgrade it to 4 card support under LoTT. When to downgrade? Well I am not sure I am qualified to answer that as a general rule; but perhaps a low ODR hand opposite a possibly balanced partner at V vs NV is a case worth considering.

I also want to point out that it is probably a good thing for you that you made the 3♦ bid happened even with the bad result. It is only by making these calls that we learn where to draw the lines. If OP had raised to 2♦ and the opps had played in a partial, he would probably never have had this discussion. Therefore it is important for bridge development to continue to be brave in competition and tone it down as you find the correct boundaries. Therefore the many professional bridge players look back to their "wild junior" days - it is an undervalued part of learning to bid.

And finally, as some posters have mentioned 4♥, on the actual layout declarer prevails using DK's line. However if West has ♥Kxxx instead of ♥Kxx it looks to me that (s)he loses control after ♥Q. That tells us that game is as much on the edge as the choice of ♦ raise. If you had gone low with 2♦ and the extra space allowed opps to bid a making 4♥ safely for a 13% hand, would you be much happier? Is it reasonable to expect East to bid 2♦ with ♥7 but 3♦ with ♠7? On this hand that would be the winning action. But bridge is not about winning a particular layout but rather about taking the action that works out best opposite a range of hands. Sometimes we make the opps guess and they guess right for a top. Stuff happens. Be happy though - next time they will guess wrongly.
You just need to keep giving them opportunity to mess up.