ratty ratty diamonds

[gwnn]

Ax

xxx

KT7xxx

Ax

 

undisturbed bidding

 

1♣-1♦

1♠-?

 

(1♠ was NF of course)

[Codo]

3 ♦ shows 6 diamonds about 10.11 points, so I see no problem yet.

Okay I had liked to have a better suit. But I like to have two aces and a king too.

And I cannot have both for my bid. :D

Very distant second choice would be 2 NT.

[jillybean]

3 ♦ shows 6 diamonds about 10.11 points,

I'd be interested to know how you evaluate a hand to 2 decimal points :D

[DWM]

Not sure if it's suitable here, but 2♥ passed my mind as long as you play

FS(1R)F not FS(G)F

[whereagles]

3 ♦ shows 6 diamonds about 10.11 points,

I'd be interested to know how you evaluate a hand to 2 decimal points :)

I think he meant 10-11 points :D

 

Anyway, 3♦ (though not totally happy about it.. lol)

[jtfanclub]

Assuming partner has a good opener, I want to play in 3NT, and I want him to declare (you can't get finessed out of aces).

 

So 3♦ for me. I could easily design the hand with the same points and distribution with tenaces where I would bid 2NT.

[han]

Agree with 3D.

[skjaeran]

I can't GF on this hand, so has to make an invite.

I can't bid 2NT which is right on values with hearts open - I'll wrongside the contract.

I don't like my suit much, but nothing better is to be found, so 3♦ it's got to be (for some playing xyz this would be forcing, they will bid 2♣ followed by 3♦).

[Echognome]

I agree with Doug that I would bid 2♥ if it was not a GF.

 

If it was a GF, then I'm left with 3♦.

[pclayton]

Csaba, does 1♠ promise an unbalanced hand? If yes, I'll content myself with 2♦.

 

If 1♠ is up-the-line bidding, I'll bid 3♦.

[jdonn]

An unhappy 3♦. The only alternative I see is 2♥ game forcing, and I can't see what that overbid really gains me so I reject it.

[the hog]

Csaba, does 1♠ promise an unbalanced hand? If yes, I'll content myself with 2♦.

 

If 1♠ is up-the-line bidding, I'll bid 3♦.

Agree with Phil here.

[MickyB]

It wouldn't occur to me to bid anything other than 3♦, the case for 2♦ is reasonable though. Wish I was playing WJS so I could bid 2♦ comfortably.

[awm]

If partner promises an unbalanced hand, he's more likely to have something like 15-16 hcp. After all, a balanced 15-16 opens 1NT right? And if partner has the unbalanced 15-16, is he really going to make a try over 1♣-1♦-1♠-2♦? Or is he going to say "well, this hand looks like a really bad misfit with my singleton opposite partner's diamonds, and while a very max hand for responder might put us in the 24-25 hcp range where game is not out of the question, this misfit might not make a game even on 25 high, so I guess I'll pass."

 

It's all very well to say that "it's a misfit so we should downgrade" but shouldn't the person who knows it's a misfit do the downgrading? After all, opener just might be 4-1-3-5.

 

I'll bid 3♦ in any case.

[pclayton]

If partner promises an unbalanced hand, he's more likely to have something like 15-16 hcp. After all, a balanced 15-16 opens 1NT right? And if partner has the unbalanced 15-16, is he really going to make a try over 1♣-1♦-1♠-2♦? Or is he going to say "well, this hand looks like a really bad misfit with my singleton opposite partner's diamonds, and while a very max hand for responder might put us in the 24-25 hcp range where game is not out of the question, this misfit might not make a game even on 25 high, so I guess I'll pass."

 

It's all very well to say that "it's a misfit so we should downgrade" but shouldn't the person who knows it's a misfit do the downgrading? After all, opener just might be 4-1-3-5.

 

I'll bid 3♦ in any case.

If pard has a 4=1=3=5, then the bidding got by 2 opponents that could have overcalled 1♥. Not certain, but pretty likely.

 

I don't understand how its 'likely' that pard has 15-16 if he's unbalanced. Even if pard has a hand like: ♠Kxxx ♥AKx ♦ x ♣KQxxx, its doubtful we want to be in game on this misfit. I see that the ♣J or the ♣10 makes game excellent, but you are talking about a very narrow set of hands that doesn't move over 2♦, but where 3N is good.

 

If pard has the same hand without the ♥K, I would rather be in 2♦ and keep my plus position.

[awm]

This line of reasoning sounds to me like "well, partner is more likely to have a minimum than a maximum, and especially with opponents silent, partner is more likely to have a non-fitting hand than a hand that fits well. When partner has a non-fitting minimum I'd like to stay as low as possible, so I'll just underbid my hand by a king and hope partner doesn't happen to have extras this time." The problem is that this reasoning seems to apply pretty much all the time, that the rewards for bidding games are sufficiently high that it's worth taking some risk to get there, and that it's generally bad partnership to bid your hand based on a "guess" of what partner has rather than showing your hand and letting partner look at his own cards.

 

A couple other points are that while the silent opponents make it more likely partner has some heart length, they also make it more likely partner has extras (opponents are more likely to bid on hands where they have a few points). And while partner's unbalanced shape makes it more likely partner has a singleton diamond (since none of the balanced hands which are ruled out include singleton diamond), it also makes it more likely partner has extras (since none of the balanced hands which are ruled out have more than 14 hcp). If we're after example hands, how about:

 

♠Kxxx

♥Ax

♦x

♣KQxxxx

 

where game is on a 3-2 club break even though opener holds a twelve-count with singleton diamond. Even if you add a couple cards to the hand (say the club jack and a major suit queen) I doubt you're getting to game after a 2♦ rebid.

[joshs]

Assuming Walsh, does anyone think that 3C is a reasonable call over 1S? If partner is a min, then he is most likely 4315, 4216 or 4225 (why else have the opps not been bidding hearts). on most of these hands, clubs will play better than diamonds, unless partner has a honor or 2 diamonds.

 

If partner has moderate extras, but is 4216 with a heart stopper, 3C will excite him more than 3D would.

 

Anyway, I know 3C is an unusual call, it just feels right to me....

 

Not palying walsh, you have no choice but 3D here, unless you played a cool treatment like 2D/1C was mildly invitational.

[pclayton]

If we're after example hands, how about:

 

♠Kxxx

♥Ax

♦x

♣KQxxxx

 

where game is on a 3-2 club break even though opener holds a twelve-count with singleton diamond. Even if you add a couple cards to the hand (say the club jack and a major suit queen) I doubt you're getting to game after a 2♦ rebid.

 

I'd be willing to bet that neither of the 2♦ or 3♦ bidders are getting to 3N. At least the 2♦ bidders will keep their plus.

 

I think if you are trying to make a good argument for 3♦, look at 4=2=2=5 hands with a diamond honor like: ♠Kxxx ♥AQ ♦Ax ♣Jxxxx. Its this class of hands that I'm most worried about, not the ones where we have an undisclosed source of club tricks.

[jtfanclub]

If we're after example hands, how about:

 

♠Kxxx

♥Ax

♦x

♣KQxxxx

 

 

I'd be willing to bet that neither of the 2♦ or 3♦ bidders are getting to 3N.

Oddly enough, I'd end up in 4♣ after a 3♦ bid.

[joshs]

If we're after example hands, how about:

 

♠Kxxx

♥Ax

♦x

♣KQxxxx

 

where game is on a 3-2 club break even though opener holds a twelve-count with singleton diamond. Even if you add a couple cards to the hand (say the club jack and a major suit queen) I doubt you're getting to game after a 2♦ rebid.

 

I'd be willing to bet that neither of the 2♦ or 3♦ bidders are getting to 3N. At least the 2♦ bidders will keep their plus.

 

I think if you are trying to make a good argument for 3♦, look at 4=2=2=5 hands with a diamond honor like: ♠Kxxx ♥AQ ♦Ax ♣Jxxxx. Its this class of hands that I'm most worried about, not the ones where we have an undisclosed source of club tricks.

Would you really rebid 1S playing walsh with that hand? I would have bid 1N without even thinking. The clubs are like a 4 bagger....

[Echognome]

<snip> ... and that it's generally bad partnership to bid your hand based on a "guess" of what partner has rather than showing your hand and letting partner look at his own cards.

<snip>

Exsqueeze me?

 

Rebidding 3♦ on KTxxxx is 'showing' your hand?

 

My partners somehow imagine better suits. Do you think there would be such a discussion if responder's hand was xx xxx AKTxxx Ax?

 

I'm all for bidding games, but shouldn't my partner be as well? Shouldn't he think a holding such as a stiff Q and defintely Qx would lead to a source of tricks?

 

Edit: Note that I advocated 3♦, but I think it is a problem hand. What if our hand was AK xxx Txxxxx Ax? Now I find 3♦ unpalatable.

[pclayton]

If we're after example hands, how about:

 

♠Kxxx

♥Ax

♦x

♣KQxxxx

 

where game is on a 3-2 club break even though opener holds a twelve-count with singleton diamond. Even if you add a couple cards to the hand (say the club jack and a major suit queen) I doubt you're getting to game after a 2♦ rebid.

 

I'd be willing to bet that neither of the 2♦ or 3♦ bidders are getting to 3N. At least the 2♦ bidders will keep their plus.

 

I think if you are trying to make a good argument for 3♦, look at 4=2=2=5 hands with a diamond honor like: ♠Kxxx ♥AQ ♦Ax ♣Jxxxx. Its this class of hands that I'm most worried about, not the ones where we have an undisclosed source of club tricks.

Would you really rebid 1S playing walsh with that hand? I would have bid 1N without even thinking. The clubs are like a 4 bagger....

Fair enough. Make the clubs a little stronger and the spades a little weaker then.

 

I hope you see my point.

[gwnn]

Csaba, does 1♠ promise an unbalanced hand? If yes, I'll content myself with 2♦.

 

If 1♠ is up-the-line bidding, I'll bid 3♦.

I don't know, unfortunately, cause I was kibitzing and a guy asked me about this bid. Therefore I don't know about your question and whether 4s is F or GF.

 

BTW, if 2♥ is only 1-round force, what are we doing after opener's 3rd bid?

[Finch]

SAYC and 2/1 covers a very broad church.

 

IF I am playing weak jump shifts "European style" (about 4-8) I comfortably bid 2D, constructive with a 6-card suit (that's part of the point of playing WJS that way).

 

I assume that's not available, or this wouldn't be a problem.

 

If 2♥ is a 1-round force, I bid 2♥ and pass partner's minimum rebid (OK, I won't pass 2♠ but you get the idea).

 

IF {2♥ is game forcing} and {1♠ guaranteed 5+ clubs} I also rather like 3♣ as a call.

 

If partner bids 'up the line' so could have anything from a 5=1=0=7 to a 4=3=3=3, AND we play 2♥ as forcing to game then, um, I really don't know. As I've never played this method it's hard to know how to bid in it... I suppose in that case I bid 2NT and hope for the best.

[joshs]

If we're after example hands, how about:

 

♠Kxxx

♥Ax

♦x

♣KQxxxx

 

where game is on a 3-2 club break even though opener holds a twelve-count with singleton diamond. Even if you add a couple cards to the hand (say the club jack and a major suit queen) I doubt you're getting to game after a 2♦ rebid.

 

I'd be willing to bet that neither of the 2♦ or 3♦ bidders are getting to 3N. At least the 2♦ bidders will keep their plus.

 

I think if you are trying to make a good argument for 3♦, look at 4=2=2=5 hands with a diamond honor like: ♠Kxxx ♥AQ ♦Ax ♣Jxxxx. Its this class of hands that I'm most worried about, not the ones where we have an undisclosed source of club tricks.

Would you really rebid 1S playing walsh with that hand? I would have bid 1N without even thinking. The clubs are like a 4 bagger....

Fair enough. Make the clubs a little stronger and the spades a little weaker then.

 

I hope you see my point.

OK I will give you:

Qxxx Ax Ax KJxxx

 

Where its close between 1S and 1N. (If 1D actually showed diamonds, 1N is much more encoraging since it promised a semi-fit)

 

Maybe add the Club T, where you don't mind a preference to 2C on Kx Xxx Kxxxx xx

 

yeah yeah, I know, you play xyz with walsh, where after telling partner (and the opps) that you have have an unbalanced hand with clubs, you can't actually play in clubs. :rolleyes: OK, I admit, hearts are 4-4 in this auction, so 1N isn't that bad a spot....

 

Seriously, its possible partner has Hx in diamonds. But you KNOW partner has a real club suit and 4S and there are only 4 cards unaccounted for and you also know the opps aren't bidding hearts, so partner almost certainly has 2/3 of them or substantional extras, so that doesn't leave a lot of room for 2 diamonds....