red vs white at imps

[gwnn]

LHO opens 1♣ and partner, who is a healthy bidder, tries 1♦. RHO doubles.

 

GAH thread title wrong. Pairs, not imps!

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=skxxhqtxxxdtxxcxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

[whereagles]

What's a healthy bidder?

 

Anyway, though all bids seem a bit equivalente, tactically the correct bid is 2♦. Bidding 1♥ leaves opps all the room in the world to find their spade fit. By taking out the whole 1 level, opener will have problems. Who knows?... maybe they end up on a 4-3 spade fit, or even in hearts!

[P_Marlowe]

2D, I have support, I show it.

 

For that matter 1H (not forcing for me)

followed by a delayed support would

show a stronger hand.

 

If healthy bidder means sound, you may

try experimenting with a 2H fit jump, but

partner should be aware that you are the

joker in the partnership.

I am also not claiming that 2H is healthy /

sane.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[rogerclee]

2♦, just barely worth a raise. I do not think 1♥ has any merit, since there is no way I am showing my diamond support later.

[the hog]

If the Hs were better I'd bid 1H, but as it is 2Ds for me.

[655321]

2♦

[joker_gib]

I pass, must have just a little bit more to bid 2♦

[andy_h]

2D. Now or never.

[gwnn]

by healthy I meant that he has a healthy appetite for overcalling

[pclayton]

by healthy I meant that he has a healthy appetite for overcalling

Then why didn't you say so? Say hi to Han for me.

 

I raise to 2♦. This is a one bid hand.

[Echognome]

I'm going to buck the trend. I'm going to bid 1♥. I agree it's a one-bid hand and this is my shot. It's not like I cannot retreat to 2♦ later if doubling starts. However, I feel the main feature of this hand is the 5 hearts. I completely understand support with support, but that comes at odds with finding your major suit fits.

[pclayton]

I'm going to buck the trend.  I'm going to bid 1♥.  I agree it's a one-bid hand and this is my shot.  It's not like I cannot retreat to 2♦ later if doubling starts.  However, I feel the main feature of this hand is the 5 hearts.  I completely understand support with support, but that comes at odds with finding your major suit fits.

I considered this, but to me:

 

1. 1♥ followed by 2♦ (over 1N) shows a better hand. 2♦ over 1♠ or 2♣ sounds like a forced preference.

 

2. Frequently when hearts is our game (barely possible), pard will bid them himself. When pard has a big balanced hand (but chose to bid 1♦), we can economically bid them over some number of NT or a cue.

 

3. Assuming 1♥ is "NF Constructive" (which is it is for many), we are about a King light.

[Echognome]

In contrast:

 

1. 1♥ followed by 2♦ (over 1N) shows a better hand. 2♦ over 1♠ or 2♣ sounds like a forced preference.

 

I don't see how 1♥ then 2♦ shows a better hand. But regardless, we do have the option to pass 1NT. I don't really mind if 2♦ sounds like forced preference, my hand does suck.

 

2. Frequently when hearts is our game (barely possible), pard will bid them himself. When pard has a big balanced hand (but chose to bid 1♦), we can economically bid them over some number of NT or a cue.

 

It might not be convenient for partner to bid them. Suppose it went:

(1♣) - 1♦ - (Dbl) - 2♦

(3♣) - ?

 

Now partner has to be willing to commit to 4♦ to show hearts. I am not claiming that bidding hearts doesn't have its downsides. Such as when partner does not have support and we're not willing to bid again to show our support.

 

3. Assuming 1♥ is "NF Constructive" (which is it is for many), we are about a King light.

 

I wouldn't play that personally. I'd play it as F1 at the 1-level. A change of suit at the 2-level under partner's bid I would play as "NF Constructive". I'm ok with the F1 given I have the diamond support. Again, it may not work out, but it's the shot I'd like to take.

[OleBerg]

2♦ wtp.

[han]

by healthy I meant that he has a healthy appetite for overcalling

Then why didn't you say so? Say hi to Han for me.

 

I raise to 2♦. This is a one bid hand.

Thanks for calling my overcalling style healthy Phil.

 

My coach doesn't agree though, so I think I will have to pull in a notch.

[mikeh]

I don't understand 1♥.

 

1. We are highly unlikely to belong in hearts, with rho showing at least 4 of them

 

2. If we do belong in hearts, it is highly unlikely that we belong there at the level to which partner will probably bid/compete

 

3. if we belong in hearts at a high level, the opps belong in spades at least as high... think about LHO's shape if partner and RHO have long hearts

 

4. if we bid 1♥, LHO gets to bid 1♠ on all minimum hands with 4♠, and to jump to 2♠ to show some extras... by bidding 2♦, we deprive him of some of the strength-showing subtleties available over 1♥

 

5. If we bid 1♥, and LHO bids a black suit, and is raised by RHO, bidding 3♦ now is a huge overbid

 

6. We cannot afford two calls with this hand unless partner shows a monster.. so support with support.. it is partner who can tell if we belong in a high(er) level of diamonds than 2.. not we

 

In fact, this hand is so weak that I am far, far closer to passing than I am to raising at all. This is a good hand for transfer advances, so that I can bid 2♦ as a weak raise, with no constructive connotations at all.

[Echognome]

Actually, there's even another downside to bidding 1♥, we might talk the opponents out of their 4-4 heart fit. :P

 

I'm still a 1♥ bidder (as I think it might be the only way we can compete in hearts), but I'm listening.

[effervesce]

I pass. If I had to bid, I'd prefer 1♥ to 2♦. The main problem I have with 2♦ is the fact that you have no A/K/Q honor in diamonds. LHO is very likely to be declarer, and if partner leads a diamond from honor empty or even QJxxx or AKxxx for example the lead will quite often cost a trick. Make the hand

 

xxx QTxxx Kxx xx

 

then I'd raise 2♦.

Making life easier for partner on lead is worth alot of matchpoints in my opinion.