[mgoetze]

A teammate and I both think the correct action on this hand is pretty clear. Unfortunately we don't have the same action in mind.

---

32-board team match, IMPs.

[ahydra]

Close between 2D and pass, our style is to raise here.

ahydra

[wank]

fortunately partner told me which suit to lead, otherwise it would be a tricky problem, and i suspect i'd go for a spade.

[nige1]

mgoetze, on 2015-April-15, 07:32, said:

A teammate and I both think the correct action on this hand is pretty clear. Unfortunately we don't have the same action in mind.
32-board team match, IMPs.

---

IMO 2♦ = 10, Pass = 9, Double = 5. We can probably make 2♦ and they can probably make 2♣. 1N will probably be touch and go (although we have the advantage of the lead).

[WesleyC]

I'm not proud, but at the vulnerability I would bid a tactical 2D.

Partner is marked with some cards in the majors (and hence shortish clubs) so I'm not optimistic about our chances of beating 1NT. And given the opponents don't have a major fit, there's a decent chance they'll end up in 3C.

[ArtK78]

WesleyC, on 2015-April-15, 12:07, said:

I'm not proud, but at the vulnerability I would bid a tactical 2D.

Partner is marked with some cards in the majors (and hence shortish clubs) so I'm not optimistic about our chances of beating 1NT. And given the opponents don't have a major fit, there's a decent chance they'll end up in 3C.

Are you playing adjective bridge so you can bid a "tactical" 2♦? If you are not, partner might think you have a "competitive" 2♦ or a "value-showing" 2♦ or even a "this might be our hand, partner" 2♦.

I have to agree with the person who thinks that this is an obvious pass.

[mike777]

ditto Art said it well.

[P_Marlowe]

2D

I am not strong enough to double, which would be penalty oriented,
I am not going to pass.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mgoetze]

FWIW I passed, and was somewhat surprised to be criticized for not bidding 2♦. The double dummy par contract was 3♦X-1.

[ahydra]

ArtK78, on 2015-April-15, 12:52, said:

...or even a "this might be our hand, partner" 2♦

That's surely 2♣, not 2♦.

ahydra

[ArtK78]

mgoetze, on 2015-April-16, 06:46, said:

FWIW I passed, and was somewhat surprised to be criticized for not bidding 2♦. The double dummy par contract was 3♦X-1.

Was the thought process that in responding to an overcall, one goes through the following algorithm:

1) Do you have 3-4 cards in partner's suit? If so, then
2) Do you have 6-10 HCP? If so, then
3) Raise to the 2 level.

This eliminates all judgment. Of course, when you reach less than the optimal contract for your side, someone has to get blamed.

[ArtK78]

ahydra, on 2015-April-16, 07:45, said:

That's surely 2♣, not 2♦.

ahydra

Not really. It is more of a "this is our hand, partner" 2♦ combined with partner's (hypothetical) big overcall rather than advancer's hand alone. I didn't mean to imply that advancer was unilaterally announcing that it was our hand, but it may be our hand.

[mikeh]

My instinctive reaction, on seeing the hand, was a wtp pass, but the more I thought about it, the more I like 2♦ given that we are white.

It will be very rare that they can double us on this sort of sequence, and if we can't make 2♦, they can surely make either or both of 1N or 2♣. Sometimes both sides can make a low level partial. Opener may well be about to bid 2♣ and now, when or if we balance with 2♦, responder may be able to bid 3♣.

Meanwhile, I don't think that 2♦ is an announcement to partner that this is our hand. 1N is not a weakness-showing action. It warns partner that any diamond hook is going to lose, that LHO has a flattish hand, with (depending on the opps style) at least 6, 7 or 8 hcp and as many as 10. Meanwhile, we had a 2♣ call to show a strong raise to 2♦ and a double for the really rare very good hand.

I think that an intelligent partner, looking at the auction, will understand that our call may really be little more than a 'noise'. Now, the opps can also suspect that we don't have a lot, but they still can't usually find a good double at the 2-level even when it exists.

I am not sure I would have bid 2♦ but I think it to be the correct call.

[WesleyC]

With the opponents denying majors and 2D/2NT/3D all available as various styles of diamond raise, I think 2C should definitely show both majors here rather than another diamond raise.

[wank]

WesleyC, on 2015-April-16, 12:16, said:

With the opponents denying majors and 2D/2NT/3D all available as various styles of diamond raise, I think 2C should definitely show both majors here rather than another diamond raise.

that's what double is for

[MrAce]

I agree with Wesley. Dbl is for me penalty. It means they or at least one of them is joking. It may not come often but natural clubs that wants to play at 2 level after 1 NT is not something that comes often. Cue does not make anymore sense than natural clubs imo. And when it does, it will be hard to tell whether it is right to remain in defence or play 2♣.

[kuhchung]

I thought a responsive double here was standard. I don't think responder ever goofs around with a 1N call in competition, but we all know how light 1 level overcalls can get!

edit: I regret posting instead of just upvoting wank