Mystery bid

[awm]

♠A9xx

♥9x

♦Ax

♣Q9xxx

 

First seat, matchpoints, all NV.

 

Pa - 1♦ - 1♥ - X

1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - Pa

???

 

Opponents play fairly standard methods, double showed exactly four spades. What is partner's 2♦ call? What's your next bid?

[straube]

I'll pass. I think 2D is natural and I expect that diamonds are equal or longer in length. Partner could have bid 1H with something like xx AKJx KJxxxx x. Perhaps opener has longer clubs than diamonds or perhaps diamonds are 6520 around the table.

[straube]

oh bother. It's a delayed Michael's bid with 4S/5H.

[JLOGIC]

2D is a cue. Ill bid 2S showing 4 spades, obv I'm always going to game and just trying to find the right one. 2H is way too wimpy.

[Siegmund]

If 2D is a cue, 2H is way too wimpy.

 

Given the evidence that all 4 people think they have hands worth bidding, and given that there are more diamonds unaccounted for than clubs or spades - looks to me like partner has a minimal-ish hand with both red suits, nobody has an 8-card fit in anything, and I put him back in his major.

 

A game for our side would a> require somebody to have psyched (and its partner, not the opps, who is in the psyching seat this hand) and b> be a lot easier to make if we had a fit.

 

If it turns out partner DOES have a big hand, well, at least the bidding gets back to him if we take a preference and doesn't if we pass.

[straube]

I think one is not supposed to look at one's hand when deciding what partner's bid means.

 

General rule of thumb but if an opponent advertises a 5 cd suit, then bidding that suit is not natural. Partner could well have diamonds but in this auction he wouldn't be able to show them because opener has advertised (probably) a 5-cd diamond holding.

 

Spades are still possible for us because responder is limited to having 4 spades. Partner can easily catch us with 3 or 4 spades and a 4-3 fit might play ok on a cross-ruff.

 

What's your answer awm?

[TylerE]

LHO has NOT shown 5♦, depending on agreements his minor suit shape could be as extreme as 3♦-5♣

[nige1]

First seat, matchpoints, all NV. ♠ A9xx ♥ 9x ♦ Ax ♣ Q9xxx

Pa - 1♦ - 1♥ - _X

1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - Pa

???

Opponents play fairly standard methods, double showed exactly four spades. What is partner's 2♦ call? What's your next bid?

IMO 2♥ = 10, _P = 5. Partner seems to be giving you a choice in case you your 1N bid showed ♦ e.g.

♠ xxx ♥ AKxxxx ♦ KQxx ♣

2♦ might conceivably be Canapé but there is no need to risk a pass or to exaggerate your values since your earlier 1N is a reasonable description. Also, if partner intends some different stronger meaning, perhaps his next bid will clarify.

[straube]

LHO has NOT shown 5♦, depending on agreements his minor suit shape could be as extreme as 3♦-5♣

The question states "fairly standard agreements". I think the "most" standard agreement is that this sequence shows 5D/4C. The fact that opener took a free bid also tends to confirm at least 9 minor suit cards.

[1eyedjack]

I don't think that my hand has improved any beyond what I have shown with 1N, and I could have had quite a bit more. So 2H

[whereagles]

I have an agreement that 2♦ means 12+ overcall (i.e. an opening). Over that I'll try 2♥.

 

Heck 2♥ regardless of what 2♦ means. Unless RHO is bluffing, we're not going anywhere.

[awm]

Well, partner's actual hand was:

 

♠xx

♥AKTx

♦QJT8x

♣Tx

 

Good guess by those who think this shows a minimum overcall with longer diamonds than hearts. This was not my guess at the table; I would pass 2♣ on partner's hand for sure and thought that 2♦ was a strength-showing cuebid.

 

If you passed 2♦, you can score up +90 for about an average board. If you corrected to 2♥ or forced to 3NT (either directly or via 2♠) you're headed for a bottom board (or nearly so). Of course, if partner had passed over 2♣ the opponents are surely going down in something or other (quite possibly doubled) for a good result our way.

[aguahombre]

Your pard was an old guy? That is exactly what my pard would have (distribution, not that strength. My surprise was that at least one poster acknowledged it was a red hand, and the only five-card suit guaranteed was diamonds.

 

Overcallers make natural (suit) rebids in the old world. Younger players like their cuebids and takeouts. However, with that hand (ten-count), I don't think I would have bid again.

[bucky]

I would think that sequence to show 5-5 in red suits. I think 1♥ is a fine overcall, but I will never bid 2♦, even if we have an agreement for it to be natural. The possibility for partner to take me back to 2♥ (and play in 4-2 fit) is just too great.

[655321]

I am sure there are auctions where the overcaller can bid opener's suit naturally at his second turn, but here, where opener's expected diamond length (except for TylerE) is 5 or more, it makes no sense for 2♦ to be natural.

 

Also, even if it is a natural bid I don't like it to be canape.

[cherdanno]

2♦ is a cue.

[campboy]

My guess was that it was sort of semi-natural, showing a good hand with values in diamonds -- the sort of hand which might have raised 1NT without the 2♣ bid but is now concerened about the lack of a club stop. (This also happens to be a pretty plausible hand given my shape.) The one thing I feel strongly about, though, is the "good hand" part.

[Phil]

2♦ is a cue in standard, but I prefer it to be natural, since 3♣ is available.

 

2♦ frankly looks like a great spot from pard's side although I'd prefer a 5th heart.

[JLOGIC]

2♦ is a cue in standard, but I prefer it to be natural, since 3♣ is available.

 

2♦ frankly looks like a great spot from pard's side although I'd prefer a 5th heart.

You would rather play 2D than defend 2C or 2D doubled? Wow.

[Phil]

2♦ is a cue in standard, but I prefer it to be natural, since 3♣ is available.

 

2♦ frankly looks like a great spot from pard's side although I'd prefer a 5th heart.

You would rather play 2D than defend 2C or 2D doubled? Wow.

Why would I want to defend 2♣ if we don't have clubs?

[JLOGIC]

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant when you said:

 

2♦ frankly looks like a great spot from pard's side although I'd prefer a 5th heart.

 

I thought by that you meant that on this deal 2D looks like a great spot. Since our 2 hands are:

 

A9xx xx Ax Q9xxx opposite

xx AKTx QJT8x Tx

 

I am saying that I would much prefer to defend 2C or 2D doubled than declare 2D. They have better fits in the majors but on this auction they seem like a big favorite to stay in a minor.

[Phil]

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant when you said:

 

2♦ frankly looks like a great spot from pard's side although I'd prefer a 5th heart.

 

I thought by that you meant that on this deal 2D looks like a great spot. Since our 2 hands are:

 

A9xx xx Ax Q9xxx opposite

xx AKTx QJT8x Tx

 

I am saying that I would much prefer to defend 2C or 2D doubled than declare 2D. They have better fits in the majors but on this auction they seem like a big favorite to stay in a minor.

No I meant 'in general' not on this layout.

[junyi_zhu]

♠A9xx

♥9x

♦Ax

♣Q9xxx

 

First seat, matchpoints, all NV.

 

Pa - 1♦ - 1♥ - X

1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - Pa

???

 

Opponents play fairly standard methods, double showed exactly four spades. What is partner's 2♦ call? What's your next bid?

2D should be natural and nonforcing. Now it's just marginal. If your partner bids 2D to show longer D than H, I would happily pass.

[jdeegan]

:) 2♥. I don't much like 2♥, but I did make a limit bid. I am on top but with only one ♦ stop, and no real ♥ fit. 3♥ seems OK, but just a little rich. 3♦ is really passive-aggressive. 2NT or 3NT both seem possible bids, but just feel wrong after the expected ♦ lead. I am going for the underbid in my old age.