[Antrax]

Why not introduce clubs at some point? That's the upside of opening 1♦, I thought.

Also, next time tell him that if you're being idiomatic then 3NT should make with 25 combined HCP. Hence, it's probably his declarer play at fault.

[Antrax]

Could you be referring to this hand?

---

[P_Marlowe]

leebca, on 2014-August-21, 18:48, said:

Thanks for all the opinions and ideas expressed. You're a good group.

As it turns out I opened this hand with 1♦;
LHO Passes! (I think, 'This might be a good sign for our side.')

Partner bids 1♥
(No surprise to me here).

I bid 2♦;

opposition keeps passing.

Partner bids 2NT
(Now it's a tough decision for me. Drop partner here, or rebid the diamonds. I think a NT contract might be a challenge, but not impossible. I figure partner has stoppers in the unbid suits, which (the ♣KQ together with the ♦KQ) should give partner entry to my hand to ensure running the diamond suit. But if this reasoning is true, the combined hands have a chance at 3NT. But even this being the case, I thought it best to be sure partner knows my diamonds are long with little outside help, so. . .)

I bid 3♦
Partner insists upon NT and bids 3NT.

Final contract: 3NT and partner is playing it.


Partner has 15 HCP with a void in diamonds. Down 2. Partner is very upset with me. "You open with 10 HCP? You can't be serious!" After a few explicatives, we split up.

That is the rest of the story!

#1 2NT is NF, having 15HCP, facing an opener, making a NF bid is whatever
#2 You never introduced your club suit, a option is instead of bidding 3D, you could bid 3C
although this would accept the game invite, showing a max. for your bidding so far ...
you alway can hide behind the claim, that AAB showes a weaker 6-4 hand, than ABA.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Zelandakh]

Antrax, on 2014-August-22, 00:17, said:

Could you be referring to this hand?

Tut, tut Antrax - never let the truth get in the way of a good story!

[eagles123]

leebca, on 2014-August-21, 18:48, said:

Thanks for all the opinions and ideas expressed. You're a good group.

As it turns out I opened this hand with 1♦;
LHO Passes! (I think, 'This might be a good sign for our side.')

Partner bids 1♥
(No surprise to me here).

I bid 2♦;

opposition keeps passing.

Partner bids 2NT
(Now it's a tough decision for me. Drop partner here, or rebid the diamonds. I think a NT contract might be a challenge, but not impossible. I figure partner has stoppers in the unbid suits, which (the ♣KQ together with the ♦KQ) should give partner entry to my hand to ensure running the diamond suit. But if this reasoning is true, the combined hands have a chance at 3NT. But even this being the case, I thought it best to be sure partner knows my diamonds are long with little outside help, so. . .)

I bid 3♦
Partner insists upon NT and bids 3NT.

Final contract: 3NT and partner is playing it.


Partner has 15 HCP with a void in diamonds. Down 2. Partner is very upset with me. "You open with 10 HCP? You can't be serious!" After a few explicatives, we split up.

That is the rest of the story!

I wonder if your partner would expect you to pass with

---

[PhilKing]

eagles123, on 2014-August-22, 02:44, said:

I wonder if your partner would expect you to pass with

---

And does this qualify as 2 quick tricks?

[MrAce]

PhilKing, on 2014-August-22, 04:12, said:

And does this qualify as 2 quick tricks?

If you strip your logic and blindly follow the definition, I am afraid it does.

[gordontd]

Antrax, on 2014-August-22, 00:17, said:

Could you be referring to this hand?

---

It's true there are some similarities, but there are so many differences that maybe it was a different hand.

Opener's shape is wrong;
LHO's first call is wrong;
Responder's first & second calls are wrong;
There is a round of bidding missing;
Responder's hand is four points different;
The number of tricks made is wrong.

[billw55]

leebca, on 2014-August-21, 18:48, said:

(story)


Partner has 15 HCP with a void in diamonds. Down 2. Partner is very upset with me. "You open with 10 HCP? You can't be serious!" After a few explicatives, we split up.

That is the rest of the story!

If this is true, you are better off without this partner.

If instead the hand Antrax presents is correct .. you are still better off without this partner.

But it is preferable to get your story right

[leebca]

I thought of mentioning the clubs but upon consideration I thought it would appear like I had a larger value. I decided to continuously send sign off bids.

I had 4 clubs.

[leebca]

The proposed hand is interesting but not the same. The bidding is 'off.' E would not jump to 3NT w 11 HCPs, especially next to opp who claimed having an opening hand. Does four to the J constitute an adequate stopper over an opening hand? I guess it might.

With the E hand and the Dbl of the W bid, I might Pass and see the opp get into trouble. If, after S's response to partner's Dbl and any additional bids, N-S played in S's club or heart suit, my partner would most likely lead a diamond and the fun would begin.

[biggerclub]

leebca, on 2014-August-21, 18:48, said:

Partner is very upset with me. "You open with 10 HCP? You can't be serious!" After a few explicatives, we split up.

That is the rest of the story!

Why aren't you yelling at him/her for bidding NT twice with a void in your suit?

The actual hand points out another benefit to 4♦. It will STOP partner from bidding 3NT. lol.

[leebca]

biggerclub, on 2014-August-22, 11:25, said:

Why aren't you yelling at him/her for bidding NT twice with a void in your suit?

The actual hand points out another benefit to 4♦. It will STOP partner from bidding 3NT. lol.

Regarding the first bit. . .I didn't see any point to that. You are correct. I had that exact thought when I found out partner was void in ♦. Partner 'stomping off' actually didn't provide any opportunity for my response.

I also had the notion to go ahead and bid 4♦, however I was bidding under the illusion partner had at least 2♦ and stoppers in the other suits. One might say that partner was under the illusion I was a full opening hand with a self-sufficient ♦ suit. . .but in my bids to sign off, I was attempting to convey a better description of my holding.

[biggerclub]

leebca, on 2014-August-22, 11:56, said:

I also had the notion to go ahead and bid 4♦, however I was bidding under the illusion partner had at least 2♦ and stoppers in the other suits. One might say that partner was under the illusion I was a full opening hand with a self-sufficient ♦ suit. . .but in my bids to sign off, I was attempting to convey a better description of my holding.

I was referring to an opening 4♦.

[leebca]

Got it (now). Sorry.

[Bbradley62]

If Antrax did post the correct hand... your partner played 102 hands in 5 hours (including two half-hour breaks) with 90 different partners (including himself on one hand). You shouldn't feel too special about being fired.

[rmnka447]

First, I would open the hand 1 ♦ and wouldn't have a problem with anyone who decided to preempt instead.

You might think about a 3 ♣ call after the 2 NT whether it is forcing or not.

After your 3 ♦ bid, your partner should have passed. 3 NT would only be right if your partner can see a way to score 9 tricks himself/herself and only needs a stopper in your suit. Your 3 ♦ bid isn't forward going, it's a sign off. You're advertising that you have ♦s and not much else.

Think about this. At 3 ♦, partner's HCP will be useful to you covering some losers. In NT, your ♦s are unlikely to be any use at all to your partner.

You did nothing appreciably wrong on this hand.

Bidding NT with a void in preempting partner's suit is almost never right. Insisting on NT with that kind of hand is the worst kind of hogging the hand. In the end, you weren't the one who bid 3 NT.

[dickiegera]

Read next post

[dickiegera]

leebca, on 2014-August-21, 18:48, said:

Thanks for all the opinions and ideas expressed. You're a good group.

As it turns out I opened this hand with 1♦;
LHO Passes! (I think, 'This might be a good sign for our side.')

Partner bids 1♥
(No surprise to me here).

I bid 2♦;

opposition keeps passing.

Partner bids 2NT
(Now it's a tough decision for me. Drop partner here, or rebid the diamonds. I think a NT contract might be a challenge, but not impossible. I figure partner has stoppers in the unbid suits, which (the ♣KQ together with the ♦KQ) should give partner entry to my hand to ensure running the diamond suit. But if this reasoning is true, the combined hands have a chance at 3NT. But even this being the case, I thought it best to be sure partner knows my diamonds are long with little outside help, so. . .)

I bid 3♦
Partner insists upon NT and bids 3NT.

Final contract: 3NT and partner is playing it.


Partner has 15 HCP with a void in diamonds. Down 2. Partner is very upset with me. "You open with 10 HCP? You can't be serious!" After a few explicatives, we split up.

That is the rest of the story!

You have not lost anything with that partner.

Couple thoughts: 2NT was not a forcing bid, with 15 pts partner needed to make a forcing bid. With a void partner surely had 2 suits to bid or a rebid in hearts. One should avoid NT with a void in partners suit and the way to bid misfits is DON"T