[cherdano]

Scoring: IMP

(P) P (1♦*) P
(1♠) P (2♠) 3♦
(P) ?

---

Opponents are playing a modern precision, where 1♦ is 2+, and 11-13 if balanced. Partner didn't have a chance to show diamonds earlier.

How much did partner show? If you pass, how much more would you need to act? If you bid, is this the absolute minimum?

[effervesce]

Looks like partner has a normal 6+ diamond overcall type hand. Give me the K of diamonds instead of the J and I might try 3NT.

[the hog]

Playing against a possible 2 card D suit, I have always maintained that is is a god idea to have a natural 2D overcall available, else you may find yourself in this quandry. I would bid 3N with your posted hand.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

How much would partner show in the sequence

(1S) - Pass - (2S) - 3D

More precise, do you play OBAR bids?

In the original sequence, an 3D OBAR bid is even safer,
because opener is tighly limited, and so is responder.

To answer your question, I would move only with opening
strength, ... which I wont have, since I am a passed hand.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hotShot]

Shouldn't there be a dbl somewhere, if we can pick redbl?

[whereagles]

The_Hog, on May 5 2008, 05:29 AM, said:

Playing against a possible 2 card D suit, I have always maintained that is is a god idea to have a natural 2D overcall available, else you may find yourself in this quandry. I would bid 3N with your posted hand.

Agree, except that I would pass now.

[benlessard]

Easy pass for me.

[Fluffy]

At this vulnerability partner might be just proposing a sacrifice, it is better to pass.

[Apollo81]

Minimum change to make it a bid would be ♦J-->♦K

[TimG]

Jlall, on May 5 2008, 12:55 AM, said:

Agree with having a natural 2D overcall available, barring that all we know is that partner couldn't overcall 3D which leaves him with a pretty wide range of hands. With a stiff spade he will probably be bidding 3D with a lot of hands. I guess with no aces I would pass, but could easily have a cold 3N.

Suppose you agree that a 2♦ overcall is natural. What about this sequence:

(1♦)-1♥-(1♠)-2♦? Is this a good raise to 2♥ or a natural bid in diamonds?

[pclayton]

TimG, on May 5 2008, 07:34 AM, said:

Jlall, on May 5 2008, 12:55 AM, said:

Agree with having a natural 2D overcall available, barring that all we know is that partner couldn't overcall 3D which leaves him with a pretty wide range of hands. With a stiff spade he will probably be bidding 3D with a lot of hands. I guess with no aces I would pass, but could easily have a cold 3N.

Suppose you agree that a 2♦ overcall is natural. What about this sequence:

(1♦)-1♥-(1♠)-2♦? Is this a good raise to 2♥ or a natural bid in diamonds?

You can play around with this sequence a lot, but I've never seen 2♦ played as natural.

Most play 2♦ and 2♠ as various kinds of raises. The need for defining certain cue bids as x and y goes away with transfer advances however.

[TimG]

pclayton, on May 5 2008, 10:43 AM, said:

TimG, on May 5 2008, 07:34 AM, said:

Jlall, on May 5 2008, 12:55 AM, said:

Agree with having a natural 2D overcall available, barring that all we know is that partner couldn't overcall 3D which leaves him with a pretty wide range of hands. With a stiff spade he will probably be bidding 3D with a lot of hands. I guess with no aces I would pass, but could easily have a cold 3N.

Suppose you agree that a 2♦ overcall is natural. What about this sequence:

(1♦)-1♥-(1♠)-2♦? Is this a good raise to 2♥ or a natural bid in diamonds?

You can play around with this sequence a lot, but I've never seen 2♦ played as natural.

Most play 2♦ and 2♠ as various kinds of raises. The need for defining certain cue bids as x and y goes away with transfer advances however.

When you play transfer advances, don't transfers usually start at the cue-bid and end at the transfer raise?

So, in a sequence like (1♦)-1♥-P-? transfers would start (and end) at 2♦. If, however, 1♦ could be short and you decide that a direct 2♦ overcall of such a 1♦ opening is natural, does the "cue-bid" exist? So, I don't see that transfer advances obviates the need to define what is a cue-bid.

[han]

I actually thought that 2D would have been natural but obviously we didn't discuss this well enough.

What if 2D was available as natural, what would that mean for the delayed 3D? Would it show a better hand, a weaker hand, a different hand or does it just not exist?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

If 2D would be natural, passing ruled out a biddable 6 carder.
Also you could bid a 2-suiter with clubs and hearts via double.

Hence 3D would look even more look like a OBAR bid, based on
a 5 carder, ... although I am not really convinced, so most likely
a delayed 3D does not exist in this scenario.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[awm]

I'd pass. There could be a game if 2♦ over 1♦ would've been artificial, but I don't think it's odds on to bid game. There are many hands that look like a weak two in diamonds where partner would bid here, especially given that our four-card spade holding basically marks partner with shortage. There is also some concern that given our combined diamond holding, opener's suit is actually clubs and a club lead may beat 3NT many tricks.

I'm curious that so many people seem to like to play (1♦)-2♦ here as natural and (1♦)-2♥ as michaels. Certainly it can be useful to have a natural diamond call available, but is michaels really better than a weak two in hearts?

[jdonn]

awm, on May 5 2008, 06:54 PM, said:

I'm curious that so many people seem to like to play (1♦)-2♦ here as natural and (1♦)-2♥ as michaels. Certainly it can be useful to have a natural diamond call available, but is michaels really better than a weak two in hearts?

As an opening bid a weak 2 is quite useful, as an overcall much less so. Less effective since they have acted already, and less needed since you can overcall 1♥ if nothing else fits.