rogerclee Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Matchpoints ♠void ♥AT ♦AKTxxxxxx ♣Jx 1♦ - 1♠? Partner will bid 2♠ over 2♥, 3♠ over 3♦, 4♣ over 3♣, and 4♣ over 3N. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 No strong feelings about this hand, but at MPs, I will bid 3N over 1♠. I don't see how I can ever describe this, so I might as well advertise a long, good suit and some outside stops, which I (sort of) have. Over 4♣, I will bid 4♥. I'm not sure what pard has in mind with 4♣, but cuebidding and showing my diamonds later seems like a good ploy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mich-b Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 5D. This is my best effort to describe hand with a lot of playing strength in Diamonds and extreme shape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 5♦, by process of elimination since all lower bids are clearly bad. My second choice is 3♣, which in principle I actually don't mind but I just don't see how it helps me here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 5 ♦ but hate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 5♦ and I love it ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 5♦ I suppose, however at Matchpoints 3NT is not a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 I would have opened 5♦, so what do I know? As it is, having opened 1♦, I suppose the sexy bid is 3N. It is a horrific misdecription of this hand, but anything I do now will be a misdescription and 3N has the biggest upsides (and downsides, but it is mps) If partner bids 4♣ over this, I bid 4♥ and await developments, but it sure sounds like slam is looming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 I've never tried to play in 3NT with a nine-card suit, and I've never regretted it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdanno Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Why is 1D, then 5D a misdescription? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Agree with 1D then 5D. 5H by partner is now RKC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Why is 1D, then 5D a misdescription?it isn't, if an initial 5♦ were misdescriptive, and I can understand why many would feel it was. But I stated that, for me, I would open 5♦. And bridge is tough enough without using two auctions to describe the same hand. If this hand falls inside your definition of 5♦, then you shouldn't open it 1 and rebid 5. But if this is wrong for the initial 5♦, you can and maybe should. I don't think there is a universally 'right' answer: my views on this one may well be endorsed by a tiny minority Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 I've never tried to play in 3NT with a nine-card suit, and I've never regretted it. How often have you had the chance? I've only held a few 9 card suits in 36 years of playing. My most recent was xxx x void KQxxxxxxx, and partner opened 4♦, showing a no-loser unspecified major, so 3N wasn't an option :ph34r: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I think it's almost impossible to claim 1♦ then 5♦ is misdescriptive because frankly no one has a clue what it shows other than tons of diamonds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 mike: what would a bid of 1♦ 1x5♦ look like to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I think it's almost impossible to claim 1♦ then 5♦ is misdescriptive because frankly no one has a clue what it shows other than tons of diamonds. Some might think it shows a better hand than a 5D opening? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I think it's almost impossible to claim 1♦ then 5♦ is misdescriptive because frankly no one has a clue what it shows other than tons of diamonds. Some might think it shows a better hand than a 5D opening? I agree, but I don't think that disproves what I stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdanno Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I think it's almost impossible to claim 1♦ then 5♦ is misdescriptive because frankly no one has a clue what it shows other than tons of diamonds. Some might think it shows a better hand than a 5D opening? I agree, but I don't think that disproves what I stated. How about tons of diamonds with a minimum opening in high cards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Tons of diamonds and a hand that is worried about missing slam if opened 5D. 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.