microcap Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 As usual, a simple looking hand turns into disaster..... IMPS TM, you hold the following white versus red: [hv=d=n&v=e&s=s875hj832da87cqj10]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Partner opens 1♦, RHO overcalls 2♣ and it is your turn. What do you do? thanks in advance as always... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 i pass i can't bid 1nt, 2nt is an overbidand i hate the shape and suits for any sort of negative double Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 double, wich is an overbid, but will have to leave with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
microcap Posted October 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 It may not matter, but the 1 diamond bid promises 4+, and if exactly 4, opener has 17+ in a balanced hand... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Classic nightmare hand (there seem to be so many). 1N is the value bid, but you can't do that :D This is an advertisement for the style in which 1♦ promises 4+ (open 1♣ on 4=4=3=2). As it is: pass: tough call to make, and may be only deferring the problem: what do we bid over a reopening double, and if LHO raises to 3♣, we probably get shut out. double: gets hearts into play, but also, unfortunately, gets spades into play.. and this is not a good dummy for spades 2♦: clearly best if we know partner has 4+ diamonds... right on strength. But horrible opposite 4=4=3=2. I would choose 2♦ as the least of evils, and pass as second. I don't like double because partner may get too enthusiastic. Edit: just read the post re promised length in diamonds... as you can tell from the above, written before learning of this, I think it is VERY important info, and firms up my choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 It may not matter, but the 1 diamond bid promises 4+, and if exactly 4, opener has 17+ in a balanced hand...uh... that might actually matter... now a 2d call actually looks reasonable. p might eke out a 2M and away we go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 It may not matter, but the 1 diamond bid promises 4+, and if exactly 4, opener has 17+ in a balanced hand... Uhm yeah it matters a lot, I happily bid 2♦ now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 It may not matter, but the 1 diamond bid promises 4+, and if exactly 4, opener has 17+ in a balanced hand...uh... that might actually matter... now a 2d call actually looks reasonable. p might eke out a 2M and away we go Eh. I'll bid 2♦ anyways. If we end up in a 6 card fit, um, oops. But even in SAYC that isn't likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 2♦, as long as partner promised 4+. With my regular 1♦show 4 if 4441 with singleton ♣, else 5+, so the even more obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 2♦ but really not happy about it. Pass is the alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Personally, in general (ie playing standard) I hate when my partner raises on hands like these. Defending could easily be right and it might also convince me to overcompete. However, with the given conditions I think raising is clear. Partner either has 5+ diamonds in which case we are fine or 17+ balanced in which case he will bid notrump next (or maybe 3♣ and then I'll bid notrump.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Amazingly, I'm going to PASS this hand, on grounds that if pard can't find another bid on himself, we probably have no game or partscore on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr1303 Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 I'm bidding 2D, as long as 1D promises as many as 3. When was the last time you were left to play in 2 of a minor anyway? However, it may help partner to compete when appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bid_em_up Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 It may not matter, but the 1 diamond bid promises 4+, and if exactly 4, opener has 17+ in a balanced hand... Given this condition, 2D seems obvious, although pass isn't unreasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 I agree that 2♦ is clear with the conditions as stated (1♦ shows 4+ diamonds, and if only 4 diamonds, 17+ HCP). If partner is strong we can get to 3NT or 4♥ and otherwise 2♦ is fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 It may not matter, but the 1 diamond bid promises 4+, and if exactly 4, opener has 17+ in a balanced hand... I'll try 2♦ now, but won't be surprised if it works out badly. With a normal SAYC meaning for your 1♦ opening I am passing for sure. .. neilkaz .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 I'll raise to 2♦. This is a nice benefit of playing a 5542 system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 I'm not sure why people feel such a strong need to play in diamonds holding 3334 shape. In a style where 1♦ shows 4+ but could be a weak notrump with 4♦, I would not have any desire to raise. Why should a 4-3 fit with no potential ruffs in the 3-card hand be the right spot? Honestly I don't feel much desire to bid at all with this hand -- partner will balance with the vast majority of hands that can make game or even provide a good partial. Of course, the given methods are essentially 1♦ = 5+♦ (I don't know what the opening is with various 4441s) so I suppose one may as well raise (assuming partner realizes that since 1♦=5+ we routinely raise on three and won't overcompete). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 I'm not sure why people feel such a strong need to play in diamonds holding 3334 shape. I don't. If the overcall had been 1♠, I'd have bid 1NT. Partner is aware that 1NT isn't available and that I'm likely to lump the 1NT responses into 2♦. At least, I hope so. How does it help to wait? Suppose your partner reopens with an X (very likely, I would think). What are you going to say, and how does that better define your hand than an immediate 2♦ bid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 Pass With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 It may not matter, but the 1 diamond bid promises 4+, and if exactly 4, opener has 17+ in a balanced hand... in this case 2D With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 I like passing this hand, especially with the slow club values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 It's very rare for me to disagree with Justin, but I prefer 2♦ here. For a start, it relieves me of the problem of what to call after a balancing double. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 In the actual hand, 2 ♦ is fine, you have a fit or 3 NT is on and your hand is limited in on bid. In standard bidding I had passed. But I do not see the point that you may have no rebid after a reopening double from pd.In this case I would bid 2 NT or what will this show? I think, we all play anysohl, but this is no situaton for it, isn´t it? 2 NT after a reopening should be natural and in this case weaker then a direct NT bid, which leaves exactly your hand for that bid, or? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 But I do not see the point that you may have no rebid after a reopening double from pd.In this case I would bid 2 NT or what will this show? I think, we all play anysohl, but this is no situaton for it, isn´t it? 2 NT after a reopening should be natural and in this case weaker then a direct NT bid, which leaves exactly your hand for that bid, or? I may be wrong but I think this is a controversial issue. Chthonic in his "Human Bridge Errors" argues that a reopening double should show extra values. In that case, 2N would be fine. But if the reopening double merely shows shortness in clubs, you would have to bid 2♦. And then a direct 2♦ becomes more attractive. That raises the question what the diference is between a direct 2N and a delayed 2N. I'm not sure about that. I don't think it's standard to play Lebehnsohl here, although you can play 2N as scrambling when the unbid suits are the minors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.