frouu Posted April 2, 2010 Report Share Posted April 2, 2010 [hv=d=s&v=e&s=shkqxxdakqjtxcxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP1♦-p-1♠-p??[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted April 2, 2010 Report Share Posted April 2, 2010 2♥ then some number of ♦'s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted April 2, 2010 Report Share Posted April 2, 2010 Agree with jilly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted April 2, 2010 Report Share Posted April 2, 2010 Ya the lack of strength is compensated by good concentrated values and lots of tricks. Also Jilly's article was great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 3, 2010 Report Share Posted April 3, 2010 Unanimous 2♥ pls? This hand is no worse than x KQxx AKQJT Qxx where everyone would reverse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohitz Posted April 3, 2010 Report Share Posted April 3, 2010 Unanimous 2♥ pls? ok! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted April 3, 2010 Report Share Posted April 3, 2010 A 2♥ reverse is a perfect description here of this hand worth at least 7 playing tricks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted April 3, 2010 Report Share Posted April 3, 2010 15-2 at the moment... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted April 3, 2010 Report Share Posted April 3, 2010 Hi, 2H. If you are strong enough for 3D, you are strong enough for 2H. Given that you have only 15HCP and since you are void in p suit,you may take the conservative approach and downngrade thehand to a 2D response. But the hand is able to produce 7 tricks in a diamond or NT contract, and that is a lot. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frouu Posted April 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2010 I was kibbing Garozzo, he bid 3♦ and I didn't understand why, that's the reason I posted this hand. But as I realized later, in his system, they have a conventional bid if partner had both majors (2♠ I think). Probably a systemic difference. Maybe someone can confirm.Thanks all for the input. http://tinyurl.com/ylh7c94 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted April 3, 2010 Report Share Posted April 3, 2010 I was kibbing Garozzo, he bid 3♦ and I didn't understand why, that's the reason I posted this hand. But as I realized later, in his system, they have a conventional bid if partner had both majors (2♠ I think). Probably a systemic difference. Maybe someone can confirm.Thanks all for the input. http://tinyurl.com/ylh7c94 Strange claim isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinorKid Posted April 4, 2010 Report Share Posted April 4, 2010 In italian system a "reverse" response shows a strong two suiter. The heart here is slightly too weak for that.The diamond here is too strong for bidding 2♦. In the system an overall strong hand (16+) is opened 1♣ artificially. Below 16 with strong two suiter is bid "reverse". So 3♦ becomes a clear cut message: "I have a solid suit". Bid 4♥ next round to perfect the decription. With ♠ - ♥ KQxx ♦ AKQxxx ♣ xxxOpen 1♦ rebid 3♦ support 4♥ ♠ - ♥ AKxx ♦ AKxxxx ♣ xxxOpen 1♦ rebid 2♥ then 3♦ ♠ - ♥ AKQx ♦ Axxxxx ♣ xxxOpen 1♥! rebid 2♦ then 3♦ (In the actual auction he bids 3NT, probabily because of their economic bidding "tempo"1♠ always denys 4x♥) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts