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.

If the convention card is marked, for responses to 1 of a major: Double Raise Inv; and "After Overcall" is "Inv." then the 3♥ is preemptive?

I'm new to BBO. How do I find partners (or advertise I'm available) to play precision? Thanks.

I'd like the opinion of novices and beginners if the bidding sequence goes: 1♥-1♠-2♠-Pass. You open with 1♥. Left hand opponent bids 1♠. Then your partner queue bids the opponents suit, in this case 2♠. Your right hand opponent passes. How do you (opener) interpret this bid by your partner? (Feel free to apply any convention(s) you know in expressing your interpretation, if you have or know of any convention). Thanks for your time. Much appreciated.

[sorry for the delay in posting/replying. Had jury duty.] Bbradley, For sure, it is up discussion whether 4 or 3♠ is medium or weak. I would prefer the 3♠ to be medium so that game in NT is still possible (i.e., 3NT). The 4♠ would be drop dead. Yes. It means some games will be hard on the opener/declarer to play, but when opener chooses to open light in first or second seat, that is their risk (and/or the fault of SAYC v Precision for instance). gszes, I figured it out and posted my correction earlier in the thread. Thanks.

I disagree Bbradley. Only the responder here knows if his hand is opening or larger. The query to opener establishes the strength or the distribution of the opener's hand and then still, only the responder knows the bigger picture. Responder may retreat with low-side opener after learning partner may have 11 HCPs.

I wouldn't dare do that, but bidding 7♣ without more knowledge of my partner's hand is not my game.

I thought well 'spoke' neilkaz. I think your assessment the best. Like a deer in the headlights I froze. I should have gone on. My hand was too strong to even be overly concerned about a weak opening. Don't agree with the proposal that 7♣ is likely. I find that, in especially tournament play, the (contrived) hands often have a nasty pitfall (e.g., stack of trumps, partner missing 5-card suit controls, weird opponent distribution, off-side finesses, etc.) built in. One spade and one or two diamond trick losses are what I might list as 'likely' without more info about the hands. My partner doesn't use Splinter bids although my HCP count was good for it. How, indeed, did 3NT become weaker than the lower bid 3♠. The responder is in the driver's seat and should have the option of setting the contract at 3♠ or 3NT if opener is weak. Leftover pre-1995 thinking in ACBL? Thank you neilkaz. :)

Thank you all. Zelandakh, I read the proposal as 1♠, 5♣. This is what I thought gszes meant. Me bidding on after 4♠ is the question. My partner would continue bidding after the Jacoby 2NT if I took it to 5♣. Re-reading that post, it seems I misunderstood.

gszes, Neither conventions/tools are used by us. Unless I'm mis-understanding your suggestion. . .My partner, with the hand held, would pass my 5♣ thinking I bid game on my own, without any knowledge of a spade fit, only believing he had an opening hand and 5+ spades. Holding two clubs, my partner would proudly have put dummy down. We generally agree that the faster/higher we bid, the less we have. The Jacoby 2NT seemed to me at the time the lesser of the evils -- two out of three requirements, a fit immediately agreed to, and conveying at least opening values. It seemed to me to be a springboard towards slam investigations with the conventions we utilize. It ran through my brain, albeit briefly, that all other bids by me and then by partner would likely miss a potential slam, with our conventions. Bbradley62, A 3NT rebid by partner would have worked, I think, but it would be a stretch for this partner having two doubletons, even though the hand might be considered medium. I would have bid pass 3NT for sure and we would go on to slam. 5♠ would be unlikely to make (from my perspective) with partner having 11-12 HCP (e.g., missing the ♠K). I couldn't muster bidding past the 4♠ facing the minimum: an 11-12 HCP hand with a 5-card spade suit. I appreciate your opinion that I should have bid on, though. That's the reply to the question.

Don't wish to be critical to anyone -- first time posting here. However, the point is in my post -- the question asked. Another agreement or another convention may be better or best, but it was not possible at the time. At the time of play I have to play our agreement. ;) PhilKing has pointed out what, at the time, could well be my partner's holdings. A 6 ♣ contract could be a mistake if partner doesn't own the ♠AK and even if so, the outstanding spades are stacked four to the J. Besides, hard to switch to a ♣ contract when the ♠ fit is clear from the start. I'd be left having to explain why I took the contract away from an established 5+/4 fit if it went down. An off-side ♦A and four to the J♣ would be one of a few bad possibles. I reasoned at the time that the 4♠ bid was a minimum hand, although in my partner's case, that could be 11 or 12 HCPs. Nonetheless, it stands as a bottom board. 6♠ would be in line with all others except one who bid and made 7♠. I do appreciate all input/replies. More comments are still welcomed. Thanks all.