[microcap]

You hold

Scoring: IMP

---

After your 1♠ opening and 1NT from partner, what is your second bid? Opps are silent.

Not one of my more complex problems, but I am interesting in hearing judgments.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

short answer: 2D.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: 1NT was forcing?

[microcap]

Yes, 1NT was forcing.... sorry for leaving that out

[helene_t]

If partner passes 2♦, he has a very weak hand (in principle not more than 7 HCPs) and most often a singleton spades. In that case, 2♦ is enough. I will raise 2♥ to 4 and 3♦ to 5 but I will pass 2♠.

[neilkaz]

2D for me, since I really don't see where your hand can force game and be a clear favorite to make vs average minimums. 3D is GF in common SA systems, and this hand just isn't that good.

.. neilkaz ..

[jillybean]

What is wrong with a 1♦ opening here? Opening 1♠ makes it impossible to show your hand

1♦ 2♠ 3♠

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean2, on Jun 30 2006, 08:20 AM, said:

What is wrong with a 1♦ opening here?

the 5th spade?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mcphee]

2D is what this is worth. I would continue with 3D over 2S to show a little extra, and would splinter 4C if partner were to be so kind as to bid 2H.

A person can never open this hand type 1D.

[helene_t]

jillybean2, on Jun 30 2006, 03:20 PM, said:

What is wrong with a 1♦ opening here? Opening 1♠ makes it impossible to show your hand

1♦ 2♠ 3♠

You would have to bid spades twice in order to show your 5-card. This might not be possible (if opps interfere), or it would show a stronger hand (if partner responds 1NT). Besides, since you would have opened 1♠ with 5-5, partner will reason that you have 6 diamonds.

[pclayton]

2♦; but I am more paranoid about missing game than the others.

If pard passes 2♦, we don't have a spade loser. Even mundane hands like x, Qxxx, Qxxx, Kxxx gives us a decent play for 11 tricks and this is an autopass over 2♦.

If pard tries anything over 2♦, I will make another move.

[keylime]

I jump shift with this hand. Six controls with 2 five card suits and a void, and a good side fragment (pard may have the 8-10 hand in hearts!), warrants a jump to 3♦.

[Winstonm]

I bid 2D. This hand looks better than it really is as it takes substantial fits in either spades or diamonds to take a lot of tricks - and the good spade fit has been ruled out with 1N. Even a subsequent 3S by partner won't get me excited as a 5/3 spade fit doesn't really improve the hand, although I would raise 3S to 4S. Even then it wouldn't be a surprise to have 4S fail by a trick or two.

[mikeh]

2♦ is automatic unless playing a big club system. Those who jumpshift cause tremendous problems for themselves for several reasons.

This is clearly a hand with great potential, but the emphasis is on potential.

We already know that partner probably doesn't fit ♠, and if he does, he sure is not passing 2♦ so we can catch up easily enough.

Why must he fit ♦'s? Isn't it at least likely that he 'fits' our void instead? And how good is this hand opposite many, many moderate hands with length and strength in ♣?

And if we do bid 3♦, do we really expect partner to bid 3♥ on x Q10xxx Qx KQxxx? Wouldn't we all bid 3N, concerned that 3♥ would endplay partner if he held no ♣ stopper?

And think of the harm we do to our partnerships when we overbid these hands. Compare this hand to a real jumpshift, such as AKxxx Ax AKxxx x....

The beauty of making a disciplined 2♦ bid is that we can then, if partner makes an encouraging noise, bid very aggressively... and partner will know our general hand type well. Thus if partner bids 2♥ over 2♦, we can choose between a conservative 4♥ or an aggressive 4♣ and he will have a pretty good idea of what we have. If he bids 2N we can bid 3♥, showing a good hand with 5341 or 5350 shape: which (surprise?) is what we have. And so on.

On the other hand, if we force to game at our second turn, we can NEVER convince partner that we hold this type of hand rather than the 'real deal' powerhouse we announce.

I understand the urge to jumpshift, but (with respect) it reflects the common tendency to overbid good hands: a tendency that is usually coupled with underbidding 'bad' hands.

[hotShot]

This hand strong enough to reverse, so i would have opend 1♦.
Now I have to bid 2♦.
3♦ shows another type of hand.

[mike777]

Wow people reverse or jumpshift with this hand....
I guess there is no such thing as a clear cut bid in Bridge World.

[Winstonm]

hotShot, on Jun 30 2006, 12:20 PM, said:

This hand strong enough to reverse, so i would have opend 1♦.
Now I have to bid 2♦.
3♦ shows another type of hand.

There is no reason to distort your pattern with a 1D bid. Part of the beauty of a reverse is that this bid announces that the first suit you bid is longer than the second, allowing partner to make an intelligent preference when 2/2 and weak.

The simple rebids at the 2-level in suits below the one opened by nature must have a fairly wide range - and thus lead to "courtesy" raises by responder with fits and decent hands. Points only should not determine a reverse - points and pattern detemine a hand worth reversing.

[bid_em_up]

jillybean2, on Jun 30 2006, 08:20 AM, said:

What is wrong with a 1♦ opening here? Opening 1♠ makes it impossible to show your hand

1♦ 2♠ 3♠

bidding the hand this way, implies you are at least 5-6+ (5 spades, 6+ diamonds), thats whats wrong with it.

[bid_em_up]

hotShot, on Jun 30 2006, 12:20 PM, said:

This hand strong enough to reverse, so i would have opend 1♦.
Now I have to bid 2♦.
3♦ shows another type of hand.

Are we looking at the same hand?

This hand is only worth a reverse if a fit can be found and the other hand does not have wasted club values.

How likely is that?

(It is also the same reason not to bid 3♦ over 1N, its not quite strong enough to do so opposite the expected wasted club values in partners hand).

[microcap]

As usual, Rex is always technically right, as I bid 3 ♦ at the table and he said I was not strong enough.

But as I am attempting to impress upon Rex, technically correct bridge often leads precisely to losing bridge. As Warren Buffett is famous for saying, "I would rather be approximately right than precisely wrong!"

This is a Clint Eastwood hand--"Do you feel lucky?"

I bid 3♦ at the table, because I like 5-5-3 hands and if I do catch a 5-3 fit in either suit, I want to at least try a game. And if really lucky, it will make bidding slam a heckuva lot easier.

As it turns out, for a change, Rex was very cooperative and held

Scoring: IMP

---

.

He bid 4NT and we ended up in 6♦, making for plus 13 imps when ♠ and ♦ broke nicely.

Now I know the technical experts will now give me a slam auction after 1 ♠-1NT-2♦, but i submit that it would never happen at the table.

So maybe I was lucky....who knows?

[Codo]

Why wouldnßt this happen?

1 ♠ 1 NT 2 ♦ 3 ♥ splinter agreeing Hearts seems to be a good way to 6♦ and yes, this would happen in 95% or more experts partnerships I believe...
Rex had the best possible hand opposite your 2 ♦ bid and you have extras too, so no problem to reach slam.