pass, w2 or w3?

[the hog]

Arguments that seem like nonsense to me:

 

snipped

 

(2) I have a weak hand with diamonds. I have a bid that shows a weak hand with diamonds. I do not like to pass when I have a bid available that shows my hand.

 

 

 

Uh, which bid would that be? Surely you can't mean 2D as your hand does not resemble anything like a weak 2 in Ds.

[fromageGB]

Uh, which bid would that be? Surely you can't mean 2D as your hand does not resemble anything like a weak 2 in Ds.

 

(2) I have a weak hand with diamonds. I have a bid that shows a weak hand with diamonds. I do not like to pass when I have a bid available that shows my hand.

 

(3) Pre-empts work best when there is a certain amount of variation. Sure, your hand is hardly classical for a weak two in diamonds. But your opps dont know that, and will treat it like a weak two in the play defence. Better yet, if you open these hands declarers have to consider that you have these hands in the play defence. Both might cause them to err in the bidding or play.

 

The bid that describes - by partnership agreement one hopes - ANY weak hand with long diamonds that cannot be opened 1♦ or 3♦ is, by definition, 2♦. Remember 3♦ guarantees 2 of the top 3 honours.

 

Argument(3) is valid, if alerted, explained, and allowed by the governing authority.

[the hog]

Remember 3♦ guarantees 2 of the top 3 honours.

 

 

Eh??? What on earth are you smoking? Where is this written?

You would not open 3D in first, 2nd or third nv vs vul on AJTxxxx ?

[fromageGB]

Remember 3♦ guarantees 2 of the top 3 honours.

 

Eh??? What on earth are you smoking? Where is this written?

You would not open 3D in first, 2nd or third nv vs vul on AJTxxxx ?

 

<snip> Arguments that do make sense to me:

(1) I like partner to bid 3N opposite a first and second seat 3m.

Thus, I only bid 3m with HHxxxx(x), so that partner, with Hx, can bid game confortable on minimalish hands knowing the minor is coming in.

 

Darjeeling, actually, but drinking rather than smoking :D

 

Hey, they are not my methods, I'm an othodox 3♦ bidder. I am merely pointing out how Phil seems to guarantee 2 of the top 3 honours with his 3♦ open, therefore a 7 card suit headed by AJT does not qualify. (Hx with partner would not be enough for a comfortable 3NT.) So that hand has to open 2♦ it seems. Therefore 2♦ is extremely wide ranging in both strength and length, as he implies, and has the unsettling effect on opponents that he describes.

[whereagles]

Remember 3♦ guarantees 2 of the top 3 honours.

Eh??? What on earth are you smoking? Where is this written?

 

In the bible.

[kenberg]

For some reason the software will not let me vote, but I chose a pass before seeing the comments or the full deal. I have a question about the success of 3♦. After 3♦-pass-pass, would not West reopen with a double?

 

It seems sort of touch and go as to whether EW will reach 3NT if N passes. 1♣-1♥-1NT and then? I guess some Wests would raise to 2NT, I probably would not.

[the_dude]

I voted 3D, because it applies maximum pressure to the opponents when it is their hand, while (somewhat) describing my hand to my partner if he has the big one.

 

Obviously you are going for a number if you play 3Dx, but honestly, that is not a likely result. I suppose partner might take a 5D sac that goes for 800, but again at equal colors he doesn't rate to be saving too often unless you are on a huge fit.

 

Most of the other results rate to be in your favor. If partner bids 3NT with Kx of Diamonds, you have a 50-50 shot (ditto for any doubleton if he can stop some suits). If he bids it with Kxx, you are in 3NT when you might otherwise not be. You have successfully warned him off of overbidding a big hand with no diamond fit.

 

And of course your opponents will have a much harder time when it is their hand.