BIL hand

[bid_em_up]

I won't disagree that it is close between pass and 3♦. There are valid arguments for both sides.

 

On the minus side of 3D, the hand doesn't have very much in the way of controls.

 

The minus side of pass is that you are expecting partner is going to get an opportunity to bid 3D (when he has 4 diamonds even). If partner has 5+ clubs, and 4+ diamonds, he has no more than 4 major suit cards, therefore the opponents are on a likely 9+ card heart fit.

 

If this is the case (as is likely), it is about to go 3H on your left and now partner will not have the opportunity to show 3 or 4 card diamond support. Even worse is if it goes 4H on your left.

 

The plus side of 3D is it confirms you have extra length in the suit while you still have the chance to do so making it easier to judge whether or not to compete over 3H/4H. I do not believe the 3D call should confirm any extra values, only additional length in your minor suit. It is not forcing.

 

The plus side of pass is that it allows partner to rebid clubs, or raise diamonds, and confirms you have no extra values. Unfortunately, partner will likely be unable to do either of these options by the time it is his turn to bid.

 

For me, the deciding factor is I am looking at 1 heart, and partner did not make a negative double of any sort. He also did not bid hearts himself. So unless he is 5-6+ in the rounded suits, the opponents assuredly have a minimum of 8 hearts and likely more. 3D will allow partner to judge his hand more accurately in terms of fit (imo) if it goes 3H/4H on our left and makes me choose 3D in the end.

 

But I certainly would not argue with pass either. :)

[ralph23]

2♣, in SAYC, promises another bid. If I am mistaken in this, then what follows is nonsense :)  but I was certainly taught, many years before SAYC, that 'standard american' bidding of 2/1 showed 10+ points and promised another bid.

2♣ promises another bid when the opponents haven't overcalled before you bid it. Otherwise, after an overcall, I'm not sure that it promises a rebid in SAYC, though it might be easier to teach that it does, so that you can keep things consistent. Note, I'm not saying it's as weak as a negative freebid.

In reviewing the SAYC booklet (which isn't exactly .... er ... exhaustive), my conclusion is that it doesn't really speak to the question of whether in SAYC, after the 1♠overcall, the 2♣ bid by responder promises another bid.

 

There is some general statement in the booklet (online) to the effect that in general "bids mean the same thing, whether or not there's interference" but this isn't at all directed to the question at hand, and I wouldn't make much reliance on it.

 

In Commonsense Bidding and in his classes, Bill Root taught that in standard, after the overcall, 2♣ would be forcing but does not promise another bid, as it does in an uncontested auction.

 

He said basically "you have to loosen up and lower your standards a bit" in the contested auction. And you as responder may have to bid 2/1 with a decent 9 points or even (gasp!) with a real good 8 and a good suit.

[paulg]

This hand came up in my BIL session yesterday.

That's funny, because this hand came up at Brighton a few weeks ago as well...

 

As the table, I passed over 2H. We gained imps on the board as a direct result of this pass.

Yes, I often use hands we've played to give the billies a laugh!

 

We never had the decision at our table as Robson had bid 4♥. At the other table Bakhshi passed over 2♥, but subsequently had a misunderstanding with Forrester and found that ♥Q opposite ♥xx was insufficient to make 3NT. Just the sort of thing that encourages everyone below world-class!

 

Paul

 

Edit: You can see the full hand in my blog.