leebca

Got it (now). Sorry. :)

Regarding the first bit. . .I didn't see any point to that. You are correct. I had that exact thought when I found out partner was void in ♦. Partner 'stomping off' actually didn't provide any opportunity for my response. I also had the notion to go ahead and bid 4♦, however I was bidding under the illusion partner had at least 2♦ and stoppers in the other suits. One might say that partner was under the illusion I was a full opening hand with a self-sufficient ♦ suit. . .but in my bids to sign off, I was attempting to convey a better description of my holding.

The proposed hand is interesting but not the same. The bidding is 'off.' E would not jump to 3NT w 11 HCPs, especially next to opp who claimed having an opening hand. Does four to the J constitute an adequate stopper over an opening hand? I guess it might. With the E hand and the Dbl of the W bid, I might Pass and see the opp get into trouble. If, after S's response to partner's Dbl and any additional bids, N-S played in S's club or heart suit, my partner would most likely lead a diamond and the fun would begin.

I thought of mentioning the clubs but upon consideration I thought it would appear like I had a larger value. I decided to continuously send sign off bids. I had 4 clubs.

Thanks for all the opinions and ideas expressed. You're a good group. As it turns out I opened this hand with 1♦; LHO Passes! (I think, 'This might be a good sign for our side.') Partner bids 1♥ (No surprise to me here). I bid 2♦; opposition keeps passing. Partner bids 2NT (Now it's a tough decision for me. Drop partner here, or rebid the diamonds. I think a NT contract might be a challenge, but not impossible. I figure partner has stoppers in the unbid suits, which (the ♣KQ together with the ♦KQ) should give partner entry to my hand to ensure running the diamond suit. But if this reasoning is true, the combined hands have a chance at 3NT. But even this being the case, I thought it best to be sure partner knows my diamonds are long with little outside help, so. . .) I bid 3♦ Partner insists upon NT and bids 3NT. Final contract: 3NT and partner is playing it. Partner has 15 HCP with a void in diamonds. Down 2. Partner is very upset with me. "You open with 10 HCP? You can't be serious!" After a few explicatives, we split up. That is the rest of the story! :rolleyes:

Unless the opening is 3♦ (or less) the option of playing in NT remains. The 4♦ opening would pretty much exclude a game in NT. Kind words from those who might consider the loss of a partner based on this holding and my chosen bid a bit extreme. Alas, it was a pretty much a doomed partnership, since partner seemed to be easily agitated.

I value the KQ combination as one quick trick. I can't find any (Internet) reference that values the KQ as less than one quick trick, but I'm open to understanding otherwise. Before the Goren point-count system (c. 1910) the trick evaluation was the criteria used to decide on opening a hand (or not). For opening I think this hand holds two quick tricks.

Thanks to all who have contributed so far. I would like to add the following analyses: 1) HCP is 10; total point count is 12 [10+2 for length] (some players do open hands with a total point count of 12); 2) If you subscribe to the rule of 20, this hand totals 21 3) This hand has two quick tricks which, by some experts, is a requirement for an opening hand. Does any of the above encourage a 1♦ opening bid? [Thank you ahydra for "call"]

Not to get anyone's underwear in a bunch, but just to gather opinions, what would you bid (assuming the "Pass" is a bid) with the following: No one vul RHO is dealer and passed and you hold: ♠x ♥x ♦KQxxxxx ♣KQxx I 'lost' a partner on my decision on how to bid this hand. :( They come and they go! Your opinion, with a supporting explanation, is welcomed. Thanks.

Of course it's "queue" for just that reason! [Actually the 'friend' insisted I write it up in the thread header exactly as he wrote it.] I would play it that way too ahydra. Except, in a tournament one might assume partner is actually playing the way the CC is marked.

Just begun to learn Precision bidding (August, 2014) Want to find a partner to play on BBO who also plays precision. I follow the precision guidelines posted here: http://www.turboirc.com/precision/ On BBO my handle is: leebca Thanks.

Just looked at the Forum to find a Partner. Good grief! Handful of posts for the Nationals, mostly. Doesn't seem like that is a viable tool to find online players of the ilk I'm interested.

Thanks neilkaz. This is what I was expecting. When you 'Google' for information about filling out the CC, the explanation under RESPONSES it is explained. However my newbie friend reading his CC read the "Double Raise:" line as being unconnected to the line below, "After Overcall:" (both of which were marked "Inv" on his CC). I admit just reading the CC it isn't clear, however I did suggest he go and find out the meaning of this area by looking it up on the Internet. The "After Overcall:" means, a Double Raise After Overcall: marked "Inv." means the limit raise with interference (as in the example here) is to jump a level in partner's suit and that, hence, the cue bid was a strong bid of at least game, if not slam potential. His explanation of what the "After Overcall:" line meant isn't worth repeating here. :(

I see. So through the Forum then.

Not often, but the chance for 10 extra points should be allowed. Depends on scoring.