Statto

I've no bid to act here, so have to pass and wait. I may still be able to join in on the next round though.

Thanks all, lots of great ideas :)

You also said it was too pessimistic, which I agree with. I assumed you meant you wouldn't hang partner for bidding 2♣, but maybe there's been a retrial B-)

I partially play 2/1 in a Strong ♣ context. But this is likely to be relevant to all 2/1 players and then some... There is probably little point in (e.g.) 1♠-3♦ being a strong jump shift, as 2♦ is already GF, so what do you use 3♦ for? If you use it as a mini-splinter (rather than weak jump shift) then I'd like to hear from you (and even if you don't I still would) B-) 1) Continuations (assuming example case of 1♠-3♦) I think this scheme works, but there are some gaps – can you fill them in or provide a better suggestion? 3♠ – minimum, attempt to sign off there 4♠ – enough for game but no 1st round control 3♥/4♣/4♦ – 1st round control, interest in at least game 4♥ – ? 3NT – ? 2) Use of double jump E.g. what does 1♠-4♦ now mean? 3) 1♥-2♠ Noting that 1♠ would obviously not be GF, should 2♠ still be a mini-splinter, or is it better to play it as a strong jump shift with 3♠ being a normal splinter? --- Constructive or destructive criticism and general comments sought. Thanks in advance for your input :)

Partner might have thought our minor was ♦, and have wasted values there. I pass.

A little, but in the original hand, we had 17 HCP, opener presumably 11+, partner probably 9+, leaving a max of 3 for RHO. So their vul competitive raise is probably based on shape and ♦ length, and there isn't much room for partner to have many high cards in ♦, making it much less likely they would be able to pass for penalty. But if they do, and we had 2 inescapable ♣ losers in 6♠ (much more likely if partner can pass 2♦X), any plus score would show a profit. I'd also be a little worried that 2♠ might get passed out (unless it's absolutely forcing). Perhaps a safer option is 3♦, though it's more likely to solicit 3NT than 4♣, which may not really help... If we can't discover any more useful information, then 6♠ must be the odds-on bet. I'm less certain after the ♣K has metamorphosed into ♣6, though it probably still is - finding partner with ♥A and ♣Q onside would be enough B-)

Another reason I don't like 1♠ is we could end up playing in ♠ if partner gets averagely frisky. Forced in ♥ from the opening lead, probably doubled, on a misfitting hand to boot. Maybe I'm too pessimistic? B-)

I think both suggest more than we have. So I'm probably going to shy away and pass in future bidding. And on that basis, I prefer double as it tells partner about 8 cards in my hand rather than 5.

Interesting. No doubt the above posters have better experience and judgement than me, but... We're vul in the sandwich position and don't have a great suit or hand. 1♠ has absolutely no pre-emptive value. If LHO declares in ♦ I probably don't want a ♠ lead - a ♥ lead if found could work well. The bullets should be fine in defence, as is our hand in general. If anything I'd double because of the ♣ tolerance (in fact that's what I'd do), or try a mischievous 2♠. I think 1♠ may suggest to partner you have more than you do, so partner ends up miscompeting.

Or, what would double mean? Would that be more likely to solicit a ♣ bid?

Just to qualify that point: bidding boxes were I think introduced to prevent UI from inflexions in the way the bids were stated, or the hardness of the knock on the table for an alert. Announcements seem to reintroduce the possibility of dodgy UI, and go against the reason for bidding boxes. If there were a set of cards in the bidding box for the various possible announcements (along with the alert card), that would be fine, but there aren't.

Do you want to open this hand 4♠ at unfavourable?

Assuming you were playing a strong NT, then your partner should never have rebid 2NT with a 19 count, unless perhaps it was forcing and you had methods available to distinguish it from a 12 count.

Don't we get to see more of what's up by opening 1♥? I'm never stopping short of 4♥ tho, and I'll take my 60-70% for going 2 off B-)

I'm assuming this would agree trumps and be forcing with slam interest. But responder might want to look for 3NT (particularly as this is MPs) and/or find out more about openers hand (perhaps a 5-3 ♠ fit) before bidding 4m. BTW, like the new boxing cat pic :D

If 2♥ is DN, then opener can pass it with a long ♥ suit and minimum 2♣ opener. If 2♦ is semi-positive and sets GF, then opener can bid 2♥ with a ♥ suit and you have a whole level of extra bidding space. For one thing, responder can now bid 3♥ to agree trumps and then you can start control-cue bidding.

I voted for 3♦ but the trap pass hadn't occurred to me :(. Now it's been pointed out, I quite like it, though there are downsides as also pointed out. Another downside is that we can't guarantee that opener will reopen.

Could not advancer have a pile of useless ♦ in a dreadful hand that in no way wants to defend 2♦X, or something approaching that? I did, thanks. Did you really mean to say that?

Yes, it shows extra ♣ length. (I probably extended my previous post as u were replying B-)) It's either extra ♣ length or a few values to justify a normal 3♣ bid. [Edit: added another sentence again]

Not at all. If you are weak with a 3 card ♠ suit and a 4 card ♣ suit and can't stand the double then you might choose 2♠ rather than 3♣. And by inference that means 3♣ shows something better than nothing, even if that something extra is a 5th ♣ in a Yarborough. [Edited to add final sentence]

You could just blog by posting on these forums B-) You missed out the bidding. No problem, I'll try out the hand editor. I can input the hand but not the bidding. Never mind, I can figure out the code from other posts: [hv=pc=n&d=s&a=1dp1h1npp2dppp&w=s9654hk8d8543cq32&n=sqt87h9753dajtc65]280|220[/hv] You also never stated the vulnerability, though it probably isn't important. [Edited to add dummy's hand]

What both of you say is true :)

Yeah, don't you just hate that: the admins make really good posts but you can't voice you're approval except by replying. And there's a 'group' called Yellows (no idea what this means) who can't be upvoted either... B-)

You're probably right, but we do have a lot of ♦ losers to discard B-) The main reason I want to play ♥ from table is to pick up one of RHO's trump honours.

I think I can now bid 3♥ and it should be GF setting trumps (I started with 1♥), but I wouldn't be confident of that with any partnership, so I'd probably bid 4♥.