Semi-preemptive hand but lacking shape

[Gerben42]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=s72h72dkqj974ckj6]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

So, what will it be?

 

Edit again: RHO Opens 1♠ ;)

[helene_t]

LHO? Maybe it was RHO since preempting is an option ....

[Gerben42]

Thanks, that is why I need this "preview". I even cannot get my posts right the second time.

[Apollo81]

2♦

[paulg]

2♦

 

Wrong distribution (too flat) for 3♦.

 

Paul

[han]

2D.

[pclayton]

You had to give me my favorite hold-em hand (and birthday - 7-2) in both majors? And the beer?

 

As tempting as those combos are, I still pass.

[P_Marlowe]

3D

 

Matter of style and a mood thing

There are days I would just bid 2D,

maybe even most of the days, but

certainly never pass.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[skjaeran]

Pretty minimum IMO, but I'll venture 2♦.

[kenrexford]

3♦ for me. Reasons?

 

1. You have about the right LTC for 3♦

2. 2♦ makes it easier than passing for the opponents to find a possible heart fit

3. Partner will expect a better hand for 2♦, at least if he is playing with me

 

This, however, is more stylistic than anything. My personal preference is for a 2♦ overcall to show a hand that has better game-going prospects and for 3♦ to handle hands like this. Others may legitimately have a different style. The downside to my approach that I can see is a greater risk of being doubled a level higher and more frequently, as well as more frequent passes, perhaps. The upside is that I jam more often at the higher level and gain more confidence if partner wants to move over my 2♦ calls.

[gnasher]

You had to give me ... the beer?

Isn't that a reason for not bidding, or at least for not bidding diamonds?

[Fluffy]

2♦ is not an option with such a weak hand, it can be either pass or 3♦ depending on your style, I'd go for 3♦.

[Gerben42]

Isn't that a reason for not bidding, or at least for not bidding diamonds?

 

I should've included 1NT for this reason?

[whereagles]

Hum.. this isn't trivial, but I'll try 2♦. I probably won't preempt LHO out of his hearts, but I might just give him a problem if he has like 7-9 hcp and flattish shape.

 

3♦ would sure be quite more bothersome, but the shape is definitely wrong.

[Guest Jlall]

To me this is the most obvious 2D bid ever. I think 3D vul is suicidal. There's just not enough upside to roll the dice with a 6322 hand vulnerable. This is of course a matter of style, etc, but I just don't believe in gambling with this type of hand.

 

Edit: Just noticed some votes for pass. Hate that as well. This is a great dummy for 3N which we may miss if I pass, gets a good lead in against either NT or hearts, is strong enough that I'm not TOO worried about 2D X (decent amount of tricks, I'm sure some people overcall with less tricks than this fairly often, good D9 etc), alleviates any "do I balance or not" problems I may have later, etc etc.

[pclayton]

To me this is the most obvious 2D bid ever. I think 3D vul is suicidal. There's just not enough upside to roll the dice with a 6322 hand vulnerable. This is of course a matter of style, etc, but I just don't believe in gambling with this type of hand.

 

Edit: Just noticed some votes for pass. Hate that as well. This is a great dummy for 3N which we may miss if I pass, gets a good lead in against either NT or hearts, is strong enough that I'm not TOO worried about 2D X (decent amount of tricks, I'm sure some people overcall with less tricks than this fairly often, good D9 etc), alleviates any "do I balance or not" problems I may have later, etc etc.

What hand across the table are you concerned about that if we pass we'll miss 3N?

[Guest Jlall]

To me this is the most obvious 2D bid ever. I think 3D vul is suicidal. There's just not enough upside to roll the dice with a 6322 hand vulnerable. This is of course a matter of style, etc, but I just don't believe in gambling with this type of hand.

 

Edit: Just noticed some votes for pass. Hate that as well. This is a great dummy for 3N which we may miss if I pass, gets a good lead in against either NT or hearts, is strong enough that I'm not TOO worried about 2D X (decent amount of tricks, I'm sure some people overcall with less tricks than this fairly often, good D9 etc), alleviates any "do I balance or not" problems I may have later, etc etc.

What hand across the table are you concerned about that if we pass we'll miss 3N?

Axx xxxx Ax Axxx.

 

KJx AJx Ax xxxxx (not cold but I'd certainly take my chances given where the opening bidder is etc).

 

etc etc etc.

 

On these hands when it goes 1S p 1N p 2H p 2S p p p or something I would feel pretty stupid that I was never even able to bid with my cold 3N.

[jdonn]

I like 2♦ much better than 3♦ or pass (would pick 3♦ between those if I had to choose.) I think Justin put it pretty well overall. The chances of there being 3NT are fairly low but it certainly could happen, and there are other good reasons to be bidding anyway.

[awm]

I don't mind pass here. Bidding 3♦ at vulnerable seems way too dangerous.

 

There are definite advantages to a 2♦ bid, as Justin has pointed out. But there are also problems, for example partner may try to take a sacrifice in 5♦ that doesn't work out well because our hand is so flat, or partner may try to penalize a game bid by opponents that doesn't work out well because our hand has so little defense. These possibilities seem more likely to me than partner having enough for 3NT but being unable to bid, if potentially a bit less costly.

 

Anyways, I'll go with 2♦ with pass a close second choice and 3♦ not in the running.

[kenrexford]

I think 3D vul is suicidal. There's just not enough upside to roll the dice with a 6322 hand vulnerable. This is of course a matter of style, etc, but I just don't believe in gambling with this type of hand.

So young to have already lost both of 'em. So sad. LOL

[Guest Jlall]

There are definite advantages to a 2♦ bid, as Justin has pointed out. But there are also problems, for example partner may try to take a sacrifice in 5♦ that doesn't work out well because our hand is so flat, or partner may try to penalize a game bid by opponents that doesn't work out well because our hand has so little defense. These possibilities seem more likely to me than partner having enough for 3NT but being unable to bid, if potentially a bit less costly.

I would bet highly on the number of successful saves partner taking being higher than the number of bad saves partner takes after a 2D bid. I mean we don't have very much defense at all so I can't see partner ever taking a phantom save, maybe he takes a save that goes down 1 too many but thats not a huge disaster. I feel like I have enough trick taking potential that we won't go for 1100 if partner saves (or that this would be a freak occurance). Perhaps this depends on who your partner is/what they expect from a 2D bid.

 

Add to this the advantages you gain when you are able to take up room from their auction/put them to a test at the 5 level ie 1S 2D 3D 5D ?, I am very happy overall when partner jumps to some number of diamonds and consider that a huge plus of overcalling (enabling partner to do that)

 

As far as partner Xing them, I can see this happening on an auction like 1S 2D 4S(made heavy) or something where he's forced into showing cards, but I think it is unlikely partner will double them unsuccessfully if he was able to get a bid in first and the opps still bid game (like 1S 2D 3D 3H 4S p p). Usually partner can figure out they are not going to go down 2. Again maybe this depends on who partner is. This is a real downside but I don't think it happens very often (especially since people don't jump to 4M very much with decent hands; see a recent thread where people disliked doing so).

[655321]

Agree with 2♦ WTP.

 

If we were not vulnerable, 2♦ and 3♦ would both be reasonable.

Pass is not reasonable at any vulnerability.

[gnasher]

I think 2D is normal and 3D a misdescription, but my objection to 3D is that it has too much outside diamonds. I don't think there's anything wrong with the playing strength.

[mikeh]

I echo everything Justin wrote on this, altho I do qualify that by saying that this is, for me, a borderline (but clear) 2♦ overcall.

 

I like the quality of the diamond suit in terms of safety at this level and in terms of an opening lead if LHO is about to bid hearts.

 

I agree with Justin that partner will probably be doing the right thing is he saves after I bid 2♦. I add that I suspect that he is far more likely to be doing the WRONG thing if he saves after I overcall 3♦. So I dislike 3♦ for two reasons: one is that it is far easier to double and defend 3♦ when it is right to do so and the other is that it may mislead partner with respect to my offence to defence ratio.

[Gerben42]

The full story:

 

1♠ 2♦ 3♠ 4♥

4♠ Pass Pass Dbl

Pass Pass Pass

 

-790

 

, partner having

 

xx

AKxxxx

x

Axxx

 

B)