[Phil]

2/1, strong NT's, nothing fancy

r/w

IMPs, long matches

1♦ - (2♣) - ?

Jx JT9xx Axxx JT

[Lord Molyb]

pass, p will probably balance if he has an 18-19 count (at least he will in my partnership)

[ArtK78]

Pass.

[mike777]

2d no problem yet


if it matters pard cant have 18-19 bal. but I still bid 2d

If it matters 3d =weak with dist and shortness

so I am weak without dist and shortness

[aguahombre]

I will knee-jerk a double. Whatever number of spades pard bids will be prepared to play diamonds at the next level. Whatever number of hearts she bids, I am delighted.

[Fluffy]

I double as well, 2♦>pass IMO

[MrAce]

Double and correct 2 spade to 3 dia is an option
If pd had 3 dia, he will have 4-4 majors
I would probably talk myself into passing though, this hand has way too many weaknesses even with a 5-4 heart fit.

[MrAce]

I hate 2 dia btw. Playing in 4-3 minor fit when 5-4 heart there is plain awful IMO .

But that's probably just me.

[billw55]

MrAce, on 2013-April-26, 02:38, said:

I hate 2 dia btw. Playing in 4-3 minor fit when 5-4 heart there is plain awful IMO .

But that's probably just me.

I remember reading that in ordinary methods, the 1♦ opening has 4+ cards about 95% of the time.

If our methods allow for x - ♠ - correct to ♦ without showing extras, that is ok. A 2♥ NFB might be ok but the suit is somewhat lacking. Agree with Fluffy though that 2♦ > pass.

[PhilKing]

billw55, on 2013-April-26, 06:12, said:

I remember reading that in ordinary methods, the 1♦ opening has 4+ cards about 95% of the time.

If our methods allow for x - ♠ - correct to ♦ without showing extras, that is ok. A 2♥ NFB might be ok but the suit is somewhat lacking. Agree with Fluffy though that 2♦ > pass.

The 95% figure, if true, is a priori. The fact that there has been a 2♣ overcall increases the chance that partner has two, and the absence of a spade bid, combined with the fact that we hold only two, greatly increases the chance that partner holds four.

[billw55]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-26, 06:37, said:

The 95% figure, if true, is a priori. The fact that there has been a 2♣ overcall increases the chance that partner has two, and the absence of a spade bid, combined with the fact that we hold only two, greatly increases the chance that partner holds four.

Fair enough. So what's your call?

[PhilKing]

billw55, on 2013-April-26, 06:42, said:

Fair enough. So what's your call?

2♦. If partner is 12-14 4432, opponents will bid to 3♣, and we will have missed a marginally profitable position for competing to 3♥ (I think we will go off more often than not). If partner is 4432 18-19, it should be easy enough to recover, and if he has, of all things, diamonds, I will be happy I raised. Doubling with the intention of removing spades to diamonds shows a slightly better hand for me.

Most of us don't open 1♦ with three cards and a weak no trump, so the problem does not arise.

[gszes]

PASS

W no longer need to keep the bidding alive in case p has a very strong hand they can do that for us.
Bidding 2d or neg x now has so many really bad outcomes its boggles the mind and we strongly
prefer to avoid a bidding disaster when playing imps. If p cannot keep the bidding alive than we
have little to no worries about missing a game. Another problem with bidding now is that it risks
burying the heart suit. Passing now allows us to GASP actually jump in the bidding under certain
sequences to let p know we were close to having a bid the first time. The black jacks (need them in
casinos) have no effect on my decision here.

[Free]

2♦ for me, I don't understand pass at all. Dbl is too risky imo, I rather play 2♦ in a 4-3 fit missing our 5-4 ♥ fit than 3♦ in a 4-4 fit with these 'values'. Even a NF 2♥ is better than Dbl imo.

2♦>2♥>Dbl>>>>>Pass

[Codo]

X with a regular partner, because over 1 ♦ (2♣) they know that this does not promise both majors.
With a non regular partner I try 2 ♦.

[Trinidad]

I am with Codo.

X if you have an agreement that returning to diamonds is not forcing. 2♦ if you don't have that agreement. I am shocked that some people are passing.

Change one of the diamonds into a club (leaving me with three card support only) and I would bid 2♦ eight days a week. It is much more important to show your partner that you have support than to worry about that one time that he has only 3 diamonds.

Rik

[rmnka447]

Pass, as partner would expect 10+ value for a 2 level negative double.

2 ♦ loses the ♥ suit. There's not enough values for 2 ♥.

The hand looks like a partscore at most unless pard has a moose.

[aguahombre]

rmnka447, on 2013-April-27, 13:49, said:

Pass, as partner would expect 10+ value for a 2 level negative double.

Normally true if the 2-level negative double guarantees enough strength for play at the 3-level. In this case, however, there is a difference. If partner bids hearts, you are happy whatever level he bids them (You will raise 3H to 4.). If he bids 2D or 3D, you are fine. If he bids 2S, your hand will not be a disappointment to partner when you return to Diamonds.

Points Shmoints, to steal from Marty. This is a nice hand.

[mike777]

It sounds like the issue is what does x and then 3d over 2s promise or the range. I would expect much more but others feel this hand type is just fine.

[Phil]

After reflection, I prefer 2♦. Over 2N, it seems we can stick our neck out a little and bid 3♥ and get to the right spot.

Double and then bid 4♦ over 3♠ when LHO competes seems like a problem, although partner probably has 4252 at worst when this happens. but I don't like it as much, since its tough to find 5-3 hearts.

Partner passed 2♣ (?!) with Axx AKx QT8x KQx, so we lost a vul game swing here. If he doubles, then my plan was to bid 3♥.