Best route to +110?

[kayin801]

[hv=pc=n&s=sah2dkj975cajt932&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1sp2cp2sp]133|200[/hv]

 

MP, first time playing with imaginative expert partner. See poll for questions, please elaborate if desired.

[mikeh]

I understand the 1♦ but don't like it. I wouldn't like 1♣, either....I hate this hand even before I open, but I dislike 1♣ less than I do 1♦.

 

1♦ allows me to describe 10 of my cards via a 3♣ rebid in the posted auction, and that sounds ok...but it gets me to a probable 5-2 diamond fit at the 3 level, and that probably won't get me 110. 1♣ then 2♣ might have let me play there...our actual auction showed only 4+ clubs, so he wasn't as likely to pass as he would had I opened 1♣ and rebid the suit....and would make me pass 2♠...which, ugly tho it is, requires only 8 tricks.

 

Horrible hand, predictable problem...having chosen my poison I must stay the course, finish drinking it, and bid 3♣.

[hrothgar]

Stylistically, I'm fine with the 1♦ opening. I definitely think it worked well here.

 

I find the proposed 3♣ rebid utterly incomprehensible.

 

The stiff Ace of Spades is a phenominal holding opposite partner's 2♠ rebid.

Partner is going to expect that my Diamonds are >= to my clubs and could easily correct my 3♣ rebid to the wrong suit.

[mohitz]

Agree with 1♦. Now pass

[wank]

Agree with 1♦. Now pass

 

i'd open 1c and rebid 2c then feel happy enough passing 2s.

 

having been forced to open 1D, i'll now pass 2S less happily

[Phil]

Its MPs and my crazy CHO has a thing for the majors. This is a lousy dummy for spades.

 

3♣ please.

 

I would have opened 1♣ but I don't feel strongly about it.

[mtvesuvius]

I agree with 1♦, seems to be the least of evils here. If I can describe 9 (or 10) of my cards, as opposed to 6 of them, I will go for the first one. Now I bid 3♣, unfortunately partner will be correcting to some 5-2 Diamond fits, however I think this will still do better than 2♠.

 

Tough hand.

[hrothgar]

Now I bid 3♣, unfortunately partner will be correcting to some 5-2 Diamond fits, however I think this will still do better than 2♠.

 

How many Spades do you think partner has?

What percentage of the time do you think he has 6?

 

(If I had to bet, I'd place partner with a 6=4=2=1 hand)

 

I can't fathom pulling what looks to be a 6-1 spade fit at the 2 level in order to play in a 5-2 Diamond fit at the three level. (Yes, I'd like to be able to ruff more Hearts, however, nothing in life is perfect)

[helene_t]

With Shogi I have the agreement "always" to pass 2♠ if I don't see game prospects. Now obviously any hand with 11 cards in the minors could make game if the hands fit better than they seem to at this point. Anyway, if p corrects 3♣ to 3♦ I am not going to bid a fourth time, so even if 5♣ makes we may not be able to reach it.

 

Pass. Partner has six spades so this is +110, if anything is. I would have opened 1♦ also btw but don't feel strongly about it.

[Flameous]

I play WJSs in all my partnerships and 2♠ shows something along 8-11 for us. Thus I'm definitely not passing this, as we do have game prospects.

However with more traditional agreements, I'll join the passers. Better take the plus and you are more likely to get it a level lower. (Not feeling good about this)

[andy_h]

1D and pass.

[Fluffy]

1♦ and I do feel strongly about it, 1♣ is idiotic.

 

I see it very easy to pass now, just think that partner might just as well hold 7 spades.

[Venom]

i used to open these hands with 1♦ and then rebid 2♣. Perhap a remnant of my many Precision days decades ago.

now i am starting to think that opening 1C and rebidding 2C might be a better way of handling this hand. If the hand belongs in diamonds, perhap partner can introduce the suit. I also want 1♦ followed by 2♣ to show good hands a la K-S. This is another example of where playing Karen Walker's weak jump-reverse style might be beneficial, but people seem to prefer the jump reverse to be some form of a splinter raise, at least over a major (Max style?).

guess ya gotta give a little to get a little.

 

But, with this hand I am passing 2♠ as things look like a misfit. Hopefully I'll get a plus score.

 

DHL/ DON aka Double !

[losercover]

Our reverse shows 5 losers with a minimum of 11 pts, so I open 1c, rebid 2d and pass the 2s rebid. Partner can't expect me to have many spades.

[hrothgar]

Our reverse shows 5 losers with a minimum of 11 pts, so I open 1c, rebid 2d and pass the 2s rebid. Partner can't expect me to have many spades.

 

that's all very nice, however, the name of this forum is "SAYC and 2/1 Discussion"

[wank]

Our reverse shows 5 losers with a minimum of 11 pts, so I open 1c, rebid 2d and pass the 2s rebid. Partner can't expect me to have many spades.

 

if you reverse on this *****, you must go off in game a lot

[the hog]

1♦ and I do feel strongly about it, 1♣ is idiotic.

 

I see it very easy to pass now, just think that partner might just as well hold 7 spades.

 

Agree totally with the Fluffster.

[655321]

I have a strongish preference for opening 1♣.

 

The reason for opening 1♦ is to bid clubs later on without reversing. If the auction gets competitive you will be able to bid clubs at quite a high level. The problem though is that you will often be preferenced back to diamonds and play in the wrong suit. This is always a potential problem when you don't open your longest suit. To open 1♦ I would need the hand to be weaker, and the longer suit to be weaker as well.

 

I don't really hate 1♦, but it is not for me.

[gwnn]

655321 vs Fluffy anyone??

[hotShot]

When I hold 6 card in a suit, partners long time average is holding 2+1/3 cards in that suit, so I expect a combined 8+1/3 fit.

8+1/3 means that we will have an 8 card fit most of the time, sometimes a 9 card fit and rarely only combined 7 cards in that suit.

 

When I hold 5 card in a suit, partners long time average is holding 2+2/3 cards in that suit, so I expect a combined 7+2/3 fit.

7+2/3 means that we will have 8 cards a little more than half of the time.

 

In SAYC and 2/1 opening 1♣and rebidding 2♣ over partners 1M bid, almost always promises a 6 card suit.

Bidding this way will lead us to a highly likely 8 card fit, but conceals the ♦ length.

 

Starting the bidding with 1♦ and rebidding 2♣ ( or 3♣ ) conceals the ♣ fit and it's hard to see how revealing this 9 cards can be an advantage, if it forces us to play an 8 or 7 card fit at the 3 level, or a 5-1 ♠ fit on the 2 level.

[hrothgar]

When I hold 6 card in a suit, partners long time average is holding 2+1/3 cards in that suit, so I expect a combined 8+1/3 fit.

8+1/3 means that we will have an 8 card fit most of the time, sometimes a 9 card fit and rarely only combined 7 cards in that suit.

 

When I hold 5 card in a suit, partners long time average is holding 2+2/3 cards in that suit, so I expect a combined 7+2/3 fit.

7+2/3 means that we will have 8 cards a little more than half of the time.

 

In SAYC and 2/1 opening 1♣and rebidding 2♣ over partners 1M bid, almost always promises a 6 card suit.

Bidding this way will lead us to a highly likely 8 card fit, but conceals the ♦ length.

 

Starting the bidding with 1♦ and rebidding 2♣ ( or 3♣ ) conceals the ♣ fit and it's hard to see how revealing this 9 cards can be an advantage, if it forces us to play an 8 or 7 card fit at the 3 level, or a 5-1 ♠ fit on the 2 level.

 

I would think that a more apt comparison is the frequency with which the auction

 

1♣ - 1♠

2♣

 

finds an X+ card fit in clubs

 

Compared with the frequency that

 

the auction

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♣

 

finds an X+ card fit in either Clubs or Diamonds

[hotShot]

I would think that a more apt comparison is the frequency with which the auction

 

1♣ - 1♠

2♣

 

finds an X+ card fit in clubs

 

Compared with the frequency that

 

the auction

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♣

 

finds an X+ card fit in either Clubs or Diamonds

 

Maybe you are right, but I guess you would bid:

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♣

 

holding 4♦ and 5♣ or 5♦and 4♣.

 

So responder will believe he needs 4 (of 7) ♣ cards to have a ♣ fit for sure and he will need 4 (of 8) ♦ cards to be sure he has a fit opposite partners minimum length in ♦. When in fact 2♣ or 3♦ will do.

[MickyB]

655321 please. Now pass 2♠

[hrothgar]

Maybe you are right, but I guess you would bid:

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♣

 

holding 4♦ and 5♣ or 5♦and 4♣.

 

So responder will believe he needs 4 (of 7) ♣ cards to have a ♣ fit for sure and he will need 4 (of 8) ♦ cards to be sure he has a fit opposite partners minimum length in ♦. When in fact 2♣ or 3♦ will do.

 

Eight card fits are nice, but 4-3 fits play perfectly well.

[losercover]

that's all very nice, however, the name of this forum is "SAYC and 2/1 Discussion"

 

Is there another 2/1 forum at this site? Our general style is 2/1 using losers and cover cards for hand evaluation and trying to limit one bids to 18 HCP. Started using the 2/1 from the Romex book and have been reading Lawrence's 2/1 workbook.