Echognome

I'm a bit confused by any discussion of passing. Han wrote that his methods were 2♦ is an artificial game force. Therefore, partner can have a very good hand and still bid 3♣ as he knows you won't pass it! I can understand a discussion of pass if 2♦ was a one-round force.

I would play this as 4h and 6d and invite. :) Well no claims that my treatment is standard. I also play that all invites bid 2♦, so 3♥, e.g. would be GF. Sorry if I made it seem that what I played was standard, because it's not. For example, playing with Jason, I would have the same problem that Han did.

I would have bid 3♦ over 2♣ showing a 5-5, but understand if you play that as a splinter. In the latter case, I bid 3♦ for now. I'm still not sure what strain we want to play in.

Playing both Leaping Michael's and Michael's cuebids to distinguish range. At least that's the style I was told is more common these days by the top players.

RHO is the preemptor! I think a small diamond is the sexy lead, but of course the ♠K is another lead trying to get into the paper. The ♠J seems the normal lead, although I certainly understand that the lead choices here are not too lovely.

I personally think it's close between 2NT and 3♥ and will be curious as to what others view the best rebid as.

Ok fine. I can see that. What about 1♦ versus 2♣ since you are sharing your opinion?

Ok, so I agree that since the hand is less well-known it increases the odds of something good happening when overcalling. But, I still stick with the fact that opening 2♣ leads to less interference. Again, it's such a tertiary issue with the hand in particular. I mean over 1NT a lot of people play DONT and WOOLSEY and whatever other method they play against a strong NT. Over a 1♦ opening, they that 1♥, 1♠, and 2♣ available as natural overcalls. Over 2♣ they have none of the above. They have in all likelihood a natural 2♦, 2♥, and 2♠. So I still don't understand, would you say the set of hands with which they would overcall 1♦ (since that was the argument, 1NT was my own aside), is at least as great as the hands that would overcall 2♣? If you think that then fine. What can I say other than I disagree? I am basing it also on my own experience and yours may differ.

Why? Would it have been more interesting to post my hand and say "Is this a 2♦ opener for you?" Obviously it's a combination of style and judgment that lead one table into game and the other into slam. Jason and I play an aggressive style, so it makes sense that we will sometimes miss slam (even if we played a conservative style this is possible). Dayou judged it differently. I don't post hands solely for the purpose of finding out whether I think partner (or myself) has made a mistake. I often just post hands to generate some discussion and determine whether a hand that "slipped through the cracks" was because our system was bad, our judgment was bad, or was just one of those things that you accept will happen on occasion.

Phil, I actually don't really understand your auction all that well. It seems that you two were on very different wavelengths. You doubled, then cue-bid. What is Dayou's 3♥ bid? Did he think 2♥ agreed diamonds, or was he just making a general GF after your cuebid. Both his 4♦ and 5♣ bid indicate that he still thinks strain is in doubt, because he doesn't have a cuebid anyway that I see normally played. I'm certainly not arguing that these are easy hands to bid, but what's wrong with 3♠ over 2♦? Doesn't this show a great hand and a great spade suit?

Despite all the other points in the thread, I still believe this is true. I really don't understand how it could not be true. You have taken away the opponents' ability to overcall at the 1-level. Granted, you are also preempting your own side in that regard. So it's much more than just taking away the opponents' takeout double. On a similar token, would you argue that you get at least as much interference over a strong NT than you would over a 1♦ opening at favorable? I understand that it's slightly different because it's less clear whether you are in a sacrifice position, but is it any more dangerous to overcall than over a 2♣ opening?

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sa75hjt875d97ck53&w=sqjt96hkd6cqjt874&e=sk843hq92d52ca962&s=s2ha643dakqjt843c]399|300|Scoring: IMP Table 1: P - P! - 1♣ - P 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ - P P - 3♥ - 3♠ - 4♥ 4♠ - 5♦ - 5♠ - Dbl All pass Table 2: P - 1♦ - 3♣ - P P - 5♦ - All Pass[/hv] Lots of action at both tables. I should note that the initial pass at table 1 was facing after facing a significant deficit and was purposeful swinging. Another item of interest in the play of 5♦ is the safety play available in hearts. (There are actually two equivalent lines to guarantee only 2 losers in hearts.)

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=s3hat3dt96432cqj5&w=sk75h84dq875c9432&e=s8hqj9652dakjc876&s=saqjt9642hk7dcakt]399|300|Scoring: IMP Table 1: 2♦ - 2♥ - 4♠ - All Pass Table 2: P - 1♥ - Dbl - P 2♦ - P - 2♥ - P 3♥ - P - 3♠ - P 3NT - P - 4♣ - P 4♦ - P - 4♥ - P 5♣ - P - 6♠ - Dbl All Pass[/hv] I was at table 1 and opened 2♦. I completely agree with my partner's 4♠ bid. I asked him later if he felt that 2♦ was wrong with all the values outside and he did not think so. It just happened that the hands meshed well. At the other table, I do not believe they were playing a natural weak 2♦ (but I will let Phil confirm) and they made there way to the very good slam.

For what it's worth, partner had: ♠ KQ7 ♥ Q95 ♦ 85 ♣ JT865 The diamond finesse loses, so you are booked for at least one down.

Ok. I'm convinced. I raise the white flag. Honestly. I was trying to back the underdog and feel that between you and Josh that you have convinced me in the error of backing the wrong horse. I appreciate the dialog.

Never claimed that opening 2♣ would never get you to a bad slam. Nothing is guaranteed. Let me make this clear, because it seems that I'm backing the longshot horse. I think 1♦ is a completely normal action. I'm only extolling the virtues of opening 2♣ in my claim that it is not "unreasonable". I respect your opinion may differ. Where I disagree with you is the notion that we do not have enough strength to open 2♣. 1. Opening 2♣ will also mean that you won't play in 1♦. 2. We can set trumps easier by opening 2♣. 2♣ - 2♦; 4♦ and off we go. We have no such luxuries opening 1♦. (although I do like 1♦ - 1♠/N; 2♥ - Any; 4♦ if it shows this hand...) 3. 2♣ is less likely to get interference than opening 1♦. 4. Partner is better suited to show us specific controls when we open 2♣. 5. How much do we really care about partner's shape? How do we expect the auction to go that we will actually find out useful information about partner's shape? All that being said, I readily agree that we do not have the defensive strength partner would expect and I do like the sequence mentioned above after starting with 1♦.

Although we might get a spade lead ruffed?

Ok. I call BS on this statement. I think as far as offensive strength goes, this hand *IS* a 2♣ opener. Maybe responder should force to slam because you and your partner have agreed X or Y, but that is a style question of course. I certainly know plenty of players that have agreed that a strong and artificial 2♣ opener can be this hand. Edit: Not that it will change your mind in any way, but in the K&R evaluator, this hand is 23.

Ok. I'll take the bate. I agree that the hand does not have the defense that a traditional 2♣ opener has, but I would argue that it has more offense than one would have. Most 2♣ openers cannot produce 9 tricks in their own hand. We may have to do make different decisions later in the auction than if we opened 1♦, but I guess the only reason I've heard that 2♣ is "unreasonable" is an indirect reference to it not having enough defense. I think it's pretty clear that the auction may work out well for us if we start with 2♣. It's less likely the opponents will interfere, etc. Now, I'm not advocating that I would open this 2♣, but I'd certainly give it some more serious consideration than above. I would reason, maybe, that opening 2♣ will tend to work well when we have the auction to ourselves as I can set the trump suit easier, and get partner cuebidding. I don't consider this hand a 2-suiter in any way, so will be calling this a 1-suited diamond hand regardless. If I open at the 1-level, it's a lot easier for the opponents to come in and compete. I might also have trouble later on describing my hand. However, the big downside of opening 2♣ is that partner will play me for more defense than I actually have. However, I still maintain that because of all the positive things that may happen, I personally find 2♣ to be reasonable.

Perhaps I will get a strong objection because of the term "reasonable", but isn't 2♣ an alternative with 9 sure tricks in diamonds?

Good point! Brain freeze there. So yes, 2♦ was a joke!

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s2ha643dakqjt843c]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You are dealer. What's your plan?

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=saqjt9642hk7dcakt]133|100|Scoring: IMP 2♦* - (2♥) - ?[/hv] *Natural, weak 2 in diamonds What's our gameplan?

I believe 3♦ would have been a fit jump. What do you suggest?

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sajhtdaq9432ckq74]133|100|Scoring: IMP (P) - 1♦ - (3♥) - P (P) - Dbl - (P) - 4♣ (P) - ?[/hv] Have we had enough or do we give it a bump?