[adhoc3]

♠QT
♥AT976
♦AT6432
♣void


Assume Pard will respond with 1S, what's your choice? Any difference if reply is 1NT?

[Echognome]

1♥ then 2♦

With minimum hands with 5-6 shape, I treat them as 5-5. I distort my hand by one card, but I don't want to lose the major. I don't feel this hand is strong enough to reverse. 65s certainly increase the potential playing strength of my hand so I don't need "full reversing strength" to reverse, but this hand is far from it.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

your given hand, is a hand were
opening the 5 card suit is better
than opening the 6 card suit.

=> 1H, followed by 2D.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jikl]

I open ♥ and rebid ♦, then the do the sensible thing after the hand if it goes wrong of explaining I accidentally mixed one of my ♦ in with the ♥ when I opened the bidding.

Sean

[SoTired]

jikl, on Jul 11 2006, 02:02 AM, said:

I open ♥ and rebid ♦, then the do the sensible thing after the hand if it goes wrong of explaining I accidentally mixed one of my ♦ in with the ♥ when I opened the bidding.

Sean

My partners claim I say that too often and hand me a packet of eyeglass wipes before each session.

[inquiry]

With touching 5-6 and not without a remarkably weak five card suit, and with no where near the values for a "reverse", I open the five card suit. I would certainly follow that rule here also, if for no other reason than game is more ikely in hearts than diamonds (in that need only 10 rather than 11 tricks).

[adhoc3]

Those who insist bid longer suit fall into trouble in this hand:

---

1D--1S
2D--3NT
4H???

Pard have to guess what's the meaning. Hope he will take it right.

Edit: Sry, I missed a few cards. Amended.

[P_Marlowe]

adhoc3, on Jul 11 2006, 09:53 AM, said:

Those who insist bid longer suit fall into trouble in this hand:

---

1D--1S
2D--3NT
4H???

Pard have to guess what's the meaning. Hope he will take it right.

If I bid the way you sketched, i.e. open
1D, rebid 2D, I certainly pass 3NT.
4H in this seq. is certainly not a pass or
correct it is a slam try, say a 6 card
diamond suit 15/16HCP.

Depending on the quality of the diamond suit,
you may even hold 17HCP.

If you bid 1D and 2D, you gave up on hearts,
you took a view, now you have to see it through.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mike777]

adhoc3, on Jul 11 2006, 09:53 AM, said:

Those who insist bid longer suit fall into trouble in this hand:

<!-- FULLHAND begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> North </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> Both </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> Unknown </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> QT </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> AT976 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> AT6432 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td>  </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> A6532 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> 32 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> 97 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> Kxxx </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> 94 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> J854 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> K </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> AQJxxx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> KJ87 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> KQ </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> QJ85 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> T32 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- FULLHAND end -->

1D--1S
2D--3NT
4H???

Pard have to guess what's the meaning. Hope he will take it right.

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????

I am a 1D and then 2D bidder here but not only do I not rebid 4H over 3nt with the North hand, I only bid 3D invite with the South hand.

[adhoc3]

mike777, on Jul 11 2006, 10:03 AM, said:

I am a 1D and then 2D bidder here but not only do I not rebid 4H over 3nt with the North hand, I only bid 3D invite with the South hand.

You cant bid both hands, Mike South will choose his bid. You'll not test his temper by asking why bid 3NT when 4H is just fine, dont you?

BTW, just like Malowe pointed, 4H could not be P/C. A genious bid after 3NT could be 4S...... 42 fit coud be so cool, but so idiot on this one, lol.

[Blofeld]

If I open and rebid ♦s and partner has 4-card support, I might expect them to mention it . . .

[han]

Indeed, playing NSI a-la-cherdano (and who doesn't these days) partner can overbid with 2NT, showing a balanced GF with good diamond support.

[han]

Also, 1D-1S-2D-3NT-4H cannot logically be a slam try, it must be a 5-6 hand. Whether one should ever bid this way is another thing.

[mikeh]

Here's a radical suggestion: pass

I would like to know the scoring and the vulnerability, but if I have no problem with pass with this hand type: it is actually usually easier to show this freak after passing than by either of the 1-level opening bid options.

If you open 1♦, you will almost certainly miss any 5-3 ♥ fit that may exist and if you open 1♥, you will never get partner to play for you holding this shape.

I know that in recent years the trend towards opening every conceivable hand has become almost an obsession, but there are very few hands on which pass leaves one significantly worse off: you may have different problems than if you open, but they will not usually be worse problems, and sometimes one ends up far ahead.

If I did open, it would be 1♥ as the least of evils. As it happens, both 1♥ and pass work just fine... regardless of which hand diagram is correct (I see mirror layouts for ew in the two diagrams I looked at)... even if we end up in 5♦ rather than 4♥, we will be happy, especially at imps.

[P_Marlowe]

Hannie, on Jul 11 2006, 10:44 AM, said:

Also, 1D-1S-2D-3NT-4H cannot logically be a slam try, it must be a 5-6 hand. Whether one should ever bid this way is another thing.

I would accept this, but only with the restriction,
that your partnership agreement is, to open
5-6 always with the longest suit.
If you open those hands with the shorter one,
in case you are to weak to reverse, bidding
the higher suit, cant be natural anymore.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

mikeh, on Jul 11 2006, 11:05 AM, said:

Here's a radical suggestion: pass

In view of the spade holding,
this makes certainly sense.

With kkind regards
Marlowe

[adhoc3]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 11 2006, 12:18 PM, said:

Hannie, on Jul 11 2006, 10:44 AM, said:

Also, 1D-1S-2D-3NT-4H cannot logically be a slam try, it must be a 5-6 hand. Whether one should ever bid this way is another thing.

I would accept this, but only with the restriction,
that your partnership agreement is, to open
5-6 always with the longest suit.
If you open those hands with the shorter one,
in case you are to weak to reverse, bidding
the higher suit, cant be natural anymore.

With kind regards
Marlowe

FWIW, I dont want to be tested by 4H... could be too stupid if wrong.

Pass is indeed an option.

[neilkaz]

I open 1H and rebid 2D and if I get to bid a 3rd time (based on PD's actions) I rebid 3D. I don't have enough to reverse, and passing and trying to back in later may leave some real uncomfortable guessing and also PD won't know that I have this playing strength.

So maybe my bidding only shows 5 diamonds...this is not a big deal to me.

[han]

Pass is way too radical for me, I'd open 1♥. I hope to kibitz some great players in Chicago this week. If I see Meckwell pass this hand then I will try so myself.

[mikeh]

Hannie, on Jul 11 2006, 12:59 PM, said:

Pass is way too radical for me, I'd open 1♥. I hope to kibitz some great players in Chicago this week. If I see Meckwell pass this hand then I will try so myself.

You wouldn't see meckwell pass this

But, they play a known light opening style in the context of a strong club method, and that makes (in my view) a huge difference. Indeed, in their methods, they can probably consider 1♦ followed by 2♥!

But for standard based methods, this is far more difficult. Kibitz Nickell-Freeman on this hand and that would be a fairer analogy.