Over or under

[gwnn]

the problem is you seem to imply every good game requires partner to hold at least 9 hcp. it's 6am and i havent slept much but the hand I gave you has zero (0) hcp and is a relatively good game in which you may or may not want to belong (and this is where i can't momentarily help you)

 

ergo

 

not every good game requires 9 or more high card point in pd's hand.

[mikeh]

My point about not missing game very often is that the opps haven't bid. Anyone can come up with a hand on which we make a game opposite a yarborough, but we won't miss that game by rebidding 2♦, because the hand CAN'T exist... the opps have 28 hcp and pass... nice bidding, guys. A 9 card heart fit and 28 hcp and they pass out 2♦! If that is the best argument against 2♦, then 2♦ is looking better all the time :P Of course, that isn't the best argument against it <_<

 

Yes, 2♦ will miss some games but not many in the real world, while 2♠ is not always working out when partner has 4 weak spades and wasted clubs and bids again.

 

I am not criticizing 2♠, btw... I don't mind it at all, but I think the disdain for 2♦ is way off-base.

[Yogeshdg]

My point about not missing game very often is that the opps haven't bid. Anyone can come up with a hand on which we make a game opposite a yarborough, but we won't miss that game by rebidding 2♦, because the hand CAN'T exist... the opps have 28 hcp and pass... nice bidding, guys. A 9 card heart fit and 28 hcp and they pass out 2♦! If that is the best argument against 2♦, then 2♦ is looking better all the time :P Of course, that isn't the best argument against it :rolleyes:

 

Yes, 2♦ will miss some games but not many in the real world, while 2♠ is not always working out when partner has 4 weak spades and wasted clubs and bids again.

 

I am not criticizing 2♠, btw... I don't mind it at all, but I think the disdain for 2♦ is way off-base.

Exactly. 2♠ and 2♦ both are acceptable to me. But i dont think any game will be missed by bidding 2♦.

[jdonn]

The point about the 0 hcp example is being misinterpreted. It's not "partner could have this hand so you should bid and not miss game if he has it." I think the person who invented it would even admit the opponents would always be bidding if partner had that. The point is more like "if partner can have a 0 count where game is ok, just think of how many hands he can have that will pass 2♦ where game is at least ok if not great." Just give him any number of somewhat similar 6, 7, 8, 9 counts and game is a cakewalk, so I still think the answer is many. If it's a partscore hand either bid could be better. If it's a game hand raising spades is to me clearly better.

[mikeh]

If it's a partscore hand either bid could be better. If it's a game hand raising spades is to me clearly better.

If it's a slam hand (admittedly less frequent than a game hand, but usually more difficult to bid) 2♦ is far superior, in my view: very very tough to show a 6 card suit after 2♠ on a 3 card holding

[Fluffy]

I do, I think 2D is terrible.

This post convincedme that 2♦ is the only choice ;)

 

Raising with 3 cards is never an option! hehe.

[Edmunte1]

I'm not a big fan of raising with 3 cards when you hold a 6 card minor, just faking your hand type. Hand type should prevail usually: i have one suited hand in ♦'s with 3 card support in ♠ and partner should ask about ♠ fit if intrested.

 

But here's a special case: We have bad diamonds, and very good controls and shape for a suit contract, and bidding 2♦ may too frequently make us miss easy 4♠ games. So add me in 2♠ bidders camp