[Echognome]

Just finished playing in a weekend tournament. The Swiss teams this evening had some interesting duplimated boards. I kept getting dealt distribution hands and being vulnerable against not. What do you do on the following hands?

1.

Scoring: IMP

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - ?

---

2.

Scoring: IMP

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - ?

---

3.

Scoring: IMP

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - ?

---

[whereagles]

1. 3♦. I bet this is gonna bother LHO a bit..

2. Dunno. At matchpoints 3 or 4♣ for sure. At imps, same thing or 1♠, depening on how the match is going.

3. 2 or 3♣, depening on how the match is going.

[hrothgar]

1. 3♦

4♦ is too exposed aqt this vulnerability with this much defense

2. 5♣

Burgess's rule

3. 1♠

[Double !]

1) 3 diamonds

2) 1 club

3) 2 clubs unless playing 3C = top & bottom cue (and even then I'm not so sure)

[pbleighton]

3D.

5C. If playing light openings, I would bid 1S.

3C.

Peter

[Blofeld]

3♦

1♣. Too much chance that we belong in 4♠ for me to preempt now, and I don't like having to come in later at these colours if I pass.

3♣. Now that partner's passed I'm not too worried about losing the spades.

[Sigi_BC84]

hrothgar, on Apr 24 2006, 12:11 AM, said:

2. 5♣
Burgess's rule

Which is?

[han]

1. 3D is all I dare. btw, I tabled an 8-card suit today. (as trump )

2. 1C, nice hand.

5. Also 3C, because partner is a passed hand.

[JohnnyH7]

1) 3D
2) 4C
3) 2C

[hatchett]

1. 3♦ seems enough
2. 1♣
3. 2♣ I dislike 3♣, I could be making 6♠ opposite Axxx and nothing else!
I certainly don't want to bury the spade suit.

[Codo]

4 ♦
1 ♣ I tried this before and failed, sometimes it must work...
2 ♣ followed by x Spade after x ♦/♥ from opps

[MickyB]

3♦
1♣, I could cope with 5♣ though
2♣ - I don't like 3♣ at all, too likely to miss 4♠

[inquiry]

1. 2♦ (at this vul, partner will expect better if maybe shorter ♦'s, especially in sandwhich position after they have shared info -- however i don't object to 3♦)

2. 1♣

3. Either 1NT (playing misho's version of raptor), or 2♣ (not playing it)

[Miron]

1. 3♦
2. 1♣ (too strong for a preempt)
3. Depends on agreement. I would bit 4♦ as Michaels ♠ and other. If not possible then 2♦ Michaels. If not possible, 2♣ or pass and wait.

[P_Marlowe]

1) 3D
2) Pass, a matter of style,
but I tend to pass weak 2-suiter,
hoping to get in later
3) 2D, assuming it is Michaels, else 3C

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hatchett]

Quote

2D, assuming it is Michaels, else 3C

I hope partner isn't disappointed with your ♥ support if you bid 2♦ Michaels.

[P_Marlowe]

hatchett, on Apr 24 2006, 08:43 AM, said:

Quote

2D, assuming it is Michaels, else 3C

I hope partner isn't disappointed with your ♥ support if you bid 2♦ Michaels.

Hi,

depends on the Michales version you are playing.
I would assume that in the US, a Michaels Cue shows
the highest unbid and and a 2nd unspecified suit.

If you play 2D as both mayors, as I do in my regular
partnership, than you cant bid 2D.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Miron]

hatchett, on Apr 24 2006, 02:43 PM, said:

Quote

2D, assuming it is Michaels, else 3C

I hope partner isn't disappointed with your ♥ support if you bid 2♦ Michaels.

Noone spoke about ♥ :-)
Depends on what Michaels you play. You can have ♠ & (♥ or ♣), or maybe another Michaels ♣ & (♠ or ♥). Hearts are just a possibility.

There are probably more Michaels cuebids, but I know just these two.

[pclayton]

1) 3 only ♦'s, and I could be convinced 2 is plenty. I've been hammered a few times vul in the sandwich chair holding a broken 8 bagger and it wasn't enjoyable.

2) 1♣. 2nd Choice: 4♣. 3rd choice: Pass.

3) A nice hand for an Overcall Structure overcall of 2♠. Not playing that I will content myself with 2♣.

[mcphee]

1: Sigh, annoying hand. 4D could work out rather poorly but 3D is not going to do any damage in what appears to be their hand.

2. No brainer to open 1C

3. Again a no brainer to overcall 2C