eyhung Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 Matchpoints, decent opponents, neither vul [hv=d=n&v=n&s=sjt72hat6d96543c5]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1♦ 1♠2♣ ? Is this hand worth 3♦ with a plan to pull to 4♦ if partner bids 3NT? Or is this worth just a gentle 2♦? EDIT: We don't bid this way with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 Matchpoints, decent opponents, neither vul Dealer: North Vul: None Scoring: MP ♠ JT72 ♥ AT6 ♦ 96543 ♣ 5 1♦ 1♠2♣ ? Is this hand worth 3♦ with a plan to pull to 4♦ if partner bids 3NT? Or is this worth just a gentle 2♦? I would treat it as a limit raise and as such call 3♦ EDIT: my initial response assumed you restricted your auctions like this to promising 5♦ if you could bid this way the same with 4♦ and 5♣ then I would settle for 2♦ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 I definitely prefer 2D. By bidding 3D, you are saying that you want to be in game opposite many of the "max" hands that will pass a 2D preference. IMO for game to be good we'll need him to have a hand good enough to bid over 2D. Also it's MP so getting too high and going down 1 is very costly. I mean yeah it's god several very nice features, 5 trumps, a stiff, an ace, JT T in the majors could have some use, but at the end of the day it's a 5 count and we're talking about playing 5 of a minor, we just need more wood imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Kid Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 2♦. Partner can still move over 2♦ with 15-17, if he doesn't I'm happy in 2♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyhung Posted February 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 The issue is that there are non 15-17s that will not move over 2♦ that make game reasonable. Any controls besides the Club King are what's needed, not the KQ of clubs or jacks. x Kx AKxxx Axxxx (the prime perfecto!) void QJxx KQxxx Axxx are examples of hands that offer good play for game. Anyway given the power of the likely 10-card trump fit, the side ace, and the right singleton, I was thinking there don't seem to be as many -1 hands (or if we do, the opponent can make a major partial) as hands where we could reach a good game opposite a pass of 2♦. But I can definitely respect 2♦ -- it's the normal bid. Just wondering whether 3♦ is a good upgrade here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 2♦ just seems normal to me. When you play partner for perfect hands... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFA Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 I bid 3♦ for sure. This hand has adequate playing strength for diamonds, so I refuse to be a bean counter. I would not be happy in 2♦. I would be very anxious that partner will take 11 or 12 tricks with hands where he would have expected 2♦ to be in danger before seing dummy. -, Kxx, Axxxx, Axxxx is a decent perfecto slam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olliebol Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 If you bid 3♦ with this you are going to end up in 5♦ very often because i would not be passing 3nt. It seems excessive to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arigreen Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 If you bid 3♦ with this you are going to end up in 5♦ very often because i would not be passing 3nt. It seems excessive to meOr you might end up in 4♦. If partner bids 3N and you pull to 4♦, shouldn't it show a hand like this? Perhaps a bit stronger, but it should be a hand with few high card points but excellent playing strength for diamonds. Partner should be well positioned to pass or bid 5♦ depending on his hand. For example, x.KQx.KQxxx.KQxx will pass and partner will have good play for 4♦. This assumes that partner would not expect you to bid only 4♦ holding two aces. x.KQx.KQxxx.AQxx will raise to 5♦. Maybe my assumptions are flawed, but it seems to me that if partner has 5 diamonds and bids 3N, we are usually safe at the 4-level, and safe at the 5 level if he raises. BTW my first reaction to this problem was that 2♦ was clear, but the more I think of it, the more I like 3♦, planning to pull 3N to 4♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 2D--unless 3D is defined as a preempt after a simple response, extending 4SF to invites. And I don't like that idea, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel_k Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 I think you have to bid 2♦ because 3♦ is a different hand. Thought it doesn't feel right and if it wasn't matchpoints then 3♦ and pull 3NT to 4♦ might be ok. We would be in a better position if we had raised diamonds immediately. Our current problem was easily foreseeable and bidding 1♠ could also have let opponents enter the auction too cheaply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted February 21, 2010 Report Share Posted February 21, 2010 It's an easy 3♦ bid for me. If pard now bids 3NT it might very well go down, but I think it's worth the risk. If pard has, say xKJxAKxxxAxxx he'll probably bid 3♥ over my 3♦ and we get to 5/6♦, while he could have passed 2♦ had I bid that. 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.