Your plan?

[Free]

Playing against good opps you hold:

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=s7h93dk87cjt87632]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

The auction starts:

1♦ - pass - pass - 1♠

pass - 2♦* - ?

2♦ = (4)5+♥

 

What's your call?

 

EDIT: vulnerability was wrong, nobody vulnerable

[mich-b]

I like 2NT now , showing long ♣s , and also length in ♦, so partner can appreciate the degree of fit.

 

But , I strongly disagree with the pass on the previous round.

I dont believe in Passing partner's opening NV Vs VUL , with any hand with shape.

[andy_h]

Would have responded on the previous round. Because of that, I wonder if partner can still play me for this good of a hand. If I had 4D-6C I would definitely have responded right? Well in that case, I now make the 2H/2S/2NT call, whichever one shows 3D-6+C :) That sorta does make sense doesn't it, I mean, what else can I have, having passed on the first round.

[655321]

I also hate the initial pass.

[mtvesuvius]

The first pass is awful. Now I like 2NT, showing the minors. It's implied that I probably only have 3 or 4♦, so I should have probably 6+♣ although or rare occaisions I may have 5. Partner should be able to figure this out, although I'm worried he'll play me for a weaker hand.

[helene_t]

Didn't think of 2NT but I like it. Actually I like 3NT even better.

[ArtK78]

Since I don't know the partnership's methods or style, I am not going to say the initial pass is awful. I know a lot of fine players who would pass this hand.

 

I would bid 3♣ now, not 2NT. A 4 card disparity between clubs and diamonds is too much just to offer a choice. I must have some diamond tolerance or I would not be bidding at the 3 level after showing such a poor hand with my initial pass.

[jdonn]

I must have some diamond tolerance or I would not be bidding at the 3 level after showing such a poor hand with my initial pass.

I think passing would be pretty awful with xxx Kx x JTxxxxx.

[cherdanno]

Playing against good opps you hold:

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=s7h93dk87cjt87632]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

The auction starts:

1♦ - pass - pass

No, it does not.

[whereagles]

Pard either has an unbalanced min with 5+ diamonds or a balanced 12-14. It is therefore safe to bid.

 

I'm not sure I would have thought of 2NT, but it's definitely a good bid (if pard is on the same wavelength).

[JLOL]

3C

[Phil]

No strong feelings about pass the 1st round. Isn't it nice we get a 2nd chance to show our hand? 3♣ for me.

[Free]

Why so much objection to the pass? You all like 1NT better? Or 3NT if partner is strong?

[mikeh]

I like 2NT now , showing long ♣s , and also length in ♦, so partner can appreciate the degree of fit.

 

But , I strongly disagree with the  pass on the previous round.

I dont believe in Passing partner's opening NV Vs VUL , with any hand with shape.

Do you pre-alert this? Do you announce, on your CC, that at favourable, partner's one-level suit opening is forcing?

 

Either you do or you are playing a HIGHLY unethical method. Or, maybe, you are exaggerating your approach?

 

I know that it is popular to claim to be ultra-aggressive, and a lot of players are... and some of them win a lot, while others don't... and I can sympathize with and might sometimes make a bid on this hand on round one, but to claim that passing is an error, let alone a serious error, is absurd.

[gnasher]

If you respond 1NT you're quite likely to hear 2NT or two of a major. If I knew that I could get back to 3♣ after 2NT, I'd be happy to respond, but otherwise I'd pass.

 

Having passed, I don't think 2NT now shows such disparity - 2236 would be more typical. On this hand we'll probably belong in clubs even opposite a singleton honour, so I bid 3♣.

[gwnn]

I like 2NT now , showing long ♣s , and also length in ♦, so partner can appreciate the degree of fit.

 

But , I strongly disagree with the  pass on the previous round.

I dont believe in Passing partner's opening NV Vs VUL , with any hand with shape.

Do you pre-alert this? Do you announce, on your CC, that at favourable, partner's one-level suit opening is forcing?

 

Either you do or you are playing a HIGHLY unethical method. Or, maybe, you are exaggerating your approach?

 

I know that it is popular to claim to be ultra-aggressive, and a lot of players are... and some of them win a lot, while others don't... and I can sympathize with and might sometimes make a bid on this hand on round one, but to claim that passing is an error, let alone a serious error, is absurd.

Um... ?

[mikeh]

I like 2NT now , showing long ♣s , and also length in ♦, so partner can appreciate the degree of fit.

 

But , I strongly disagree with the  pass on the previous round.

I dont believe in Passing partner's opening NV Vs VUL , with any hand with shape.

Do you pre-alert this? Do you announce, on your CC, that at favourable, partner's one-level suit opening is forcing?

 

Either you do or you are playing a HIGHLY unethical method. Or, maybe, you are exaggerating your approach?

 

I know that it is popular to claim to be ultra-aggressive, and a lot of players are... and some of them win a lot, while others don't... and I can sympathize with and might sometimes make a bid on this hand on round one, but to claim that passing is an error, let alone a serious error, is absurd.

Um... ?

um? meaning what?

 

We have seen a lot of posts, in various threads, in which posters claim that they never pass their partner's opening bids, in various situations... yet not one of them ever posts that they announce this practice. I happen to think that the style is difficult to play since we couple, in standard, wide range openings with wider range responses, and we can end up with partner making a gf jumpshift with, say, 19 hcp, and responder forced to bid with a misfitting zero count, but that pales in comparison to the ethical issues... which no-one seems to want to recognize.

[Echognome]

Mike - I think it's because there is a difference between "with any hand shape" and "with any hand with shape".

 

As the poster does not define "with shape", this could be anywhere from quite controversial to quite obvious. I'm sure no one will pass 1♣ with xxxxxxxx xxx xx ---. And yet most would pass 1♠ with xx xxx xxx xxxxx. So it just depends on what the poster really means.

[cherdanno]

Wow, some are really arguing in favor of the first round pass? Isn't this obviously (to all except bean-, sorry, hcp-counters) a better hand than all the balanced 6 hcp hands we automatically respond with?

 

(Yeah I admit, I only posted this since I couldn't pass up the opportunity to call Mike a "hcp-counter".)

[jdonn]

I like 2NT now , showing long ♣s , and also length in ♦, so partner can appreciate the degree of fit.

 

But , I strongly disagree with the  pass on the previous round.

I dont believe in Passing partner's opening NV Vs VUL , with any hand with shape.

Do you pre-alert this? Do you announce, on your CC, that at favourable, partner's one-level suit opening is forcing?

I'm curious why you immediately think to ask this question of people who respond extremely light to opening bids. I might be misreading, but it seems awfully cynical to me.

[rbforster]

Perhaps the "obvious to bid round 1" people will explain their initial bid and plan in an uncontested auction (unless they're all playing 3♣ as a weak jump shift which I think is pretty rare).

 

1NT seems like the least awful non-psych choice, although if partner passes I'm not sure we'll be in a good place (I guess maybe NV it'll be an ok sac against their partial). 1♦-1N-2N will force you to at least 4♣ if you play transfers there and can't get out in 3♣. Opposite a random balanced hand, I don't think I'm willing to bid some number of diamonds playing inverted minors.

 

Passing the first time, I'm would double 2♦ for lead since I expect to defend against the opponent's spade partial. I can see bidding 3♣ though to try to bury their spade fit (known to me, if not yet to them).

[mikeh]

I like 2NT now , showing long ♣s , and also length in ♦, so partner can appreciate the degree of fit.

 

But , I strongly disagree with the  pass on the previous round.

I dont believe in Passing partner's opening NV Vs VUL , with any hand with shape.

Do you pre-alert this? Do you announce, on your CC, that at favourable, partner's one-level suit opening is forcing?

I'm curious why you immediately think to ask this question of people who respond extremely light to opening bids. I might be misreading, but it seems awfully cynical to me.

I may have misunderstood the post I responded to... but this has, as I wrote, been a fairly common position in the fora: 'I never pass partner's opening bid', whether qualified, as it was here, by 'with any shape', presumably meaning I bid on zero counts but only if they are shapely, or otherwise.

 

Are we not under an ethical obligation to disclose non-standard treatments? Maybe in an extended match against WC opps, we don't need to prealert this approach, but most of us rarely, if ever, play in those circumstances.

 

If I have played with this partner before, to any degree, then almost certainly partner is aware of my tendencies, and when those include responding on a shapely zero count, he will cater to that in the auction... but the opps won't, because this is a hidden agreement.

 

Maybe we are all so sophisticated on this forum that we think that this is all standard, or should be, or that the rules don't apply to us. Nonsense... in fact, the better we may be, and the more experienced we may be, the more ethical we should be.

 

I am not saying that the ultra light responders are deliberately being unethical.. but I do wonder if they announce this approach... the few times I have encountered this at the table, alerts and notations on the CC have been absent, and the proponents sneer at objections on the basis that what they are doing is 'bridge'.

[jdonn]

Yes you give a lot of explanation about the question, the answer, explanation of the question, etc. But what I was wondering was why your mind drifts to that particular question in these cases. No one who talks about landy on the forums seems to be questioned about their ethics.

[helene_t]

I think I should ask why this thread has derailed into asking question about what motivates a to ask why b ask c about d's questioning behavior, while this "note censored" thread has become an exercise in assertions about who should assume what about whether a should use the word "should" when applied to the question of what b should or should not do.

 

Um... ?

btw I agree with Csaba.

[ArtK78]

Some years ago, I played in a few North American championship events with a partner who was new to me but is fairly well known at that level. One of the first things he told me was that I must ALWAYS have 6 HCP to respond to a one of a suit opening bid. If I had less than 6 HCP, I must pass. I questioned him about it, giving him some misfitting shapely hands, and he dismissed them all.

 

In discussing this with others, I referred to this as "NAME's Rule." I am not going to name him, but you get the idea.

 

This person is not 90 years old or a duffer. I do not know for sure if he has ever won a North American Championship event, but I see his name listed in the overall standings quite frequently. He and I finished about 16th in one of the 4-session NA Open Pairs (this was before the time when the overalls were expanded to include most of the pairs that finish above-average in the finals, and 16th place was just out of the overalls). We also finished just out of the overalls in the 4-session North American Swiss on the last weekend of the same tournament.

 

My point is that there are very experienced players who do not respond to one-bids on hands such as the one presented in this thread. And I understand Mike's point about players who say that they will never pass an opening one-bid, or will do so only in the most extreme circumstances. This is an undisclosed partnership agreement.

 

On the other hand, while "NAME's Rule" is certainly a partnership agreement, it would not really be a surprise to anyone if a reasonable 5-count were to pass an opening bid. I doubt that anyone would question it.