[pbleighton]

Quote

and too much to overcall in balancing seat

No it's not.

But it's close.

Peter

[ochinko]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 1 2007, 05:44 PM, said:

ochinko, on Jun 1 2007, 12:44 PM, said:

Double, then 1NT over a 1♥/♠ from partner.

Vulnerable, I could be even more aggressive, and bid directly 2NT, treating my hand as 19-20. Given that partner has passed there's not much chance that he has a five card major.

There is a minor issue that double-then-bid-NT tends to imply a club stop, and you don't have one.

And I really fail to see the point in bidding 2NT showing 19-20 balanced with a stop, when you have a 16-count without a stop.

I think it's close between x and 1D. In second seat I would definitely double to get partner involved in the majors if the next hand raises clubs; after RHO has already passed I think I prefer 1D.

Ok, I cannot argue that I actually have a stopper in clubs.

As to the strength though, AKQ10x seems to me to provide with enough confidence a trick more than AKQ10. Considering that an extra trick amounts approximately to 3 HCP, our 16 points become 19. It seems to me a routine evaluation.

[jdonn]

ochinko, on Jun 1 2007, 02:44 PM, said:

Ok, I cannot argue that I actually have a stopper in clubs.

As to the strength though, AKQ10x seems to me to provide with enough confidence a trick more than AKQ10. Considering that an extra trick amounts approximately to 3 HCP, our 16 points become 19. It seems to me a routine evaluation.

I can't believe you really mean that. Do you open 1NT with 12 counts that have an AKQTx?

[helene_t]

Agree with all what Justin said.

I'm worried about opps bidding 2M before my next turn, though. But that would be a problem if I start with 1♦ as well, I think.

[ochinko]

jdonn, on Jun 1 2007, 10:48 PM, said:

ochinko, on Jun 1 2007, 02:44 PM, said:

Ok, I cannot argue that I actually have a stopper in clubs.

As to the strength though, AKQ10x seems to me to provide with enough confidence a trick more than AKQ10. Considering that an extra trick amounts approximately to 3 HCP, our 16 points become 19. It seems to me a routine evaluation.

I can't believe you really mean that. Do you open 1NT with 12 counts that have an AKQTx?

Come to think of it, I haven't opened 1NT with 12 points. But a friend of mine (and a far better player than me) opened 1NT against Zia with this:

A 7 6
A 4 3
6
K Q 10 9 8 2

He didn't find that enough. He also superaccepted partner's transfer to spades. But I won't spoil it further. You can read it here: second deal

[jchiu]

Sounds like a hand that I heard about while waiting in the check-in line to go to Oklahoma City last month ... K10xxx Q8x Axxx x

[kenrexford]

Funny, perhaps, but this looks to me like a good hand for 2♦ in fourth seat.

Invitational values.
Great suit.
Invites bidding a 5-card major, but probably not a four-card major.
Expresses doubt, albeit a subtle expression, about the club stopper.

Looks just about right. I'd like a sixth diamond, but so what?

BTW, if fourth seat features intermediate jump shifts as an option, then X...suit should logically be stronger. This does not seem strong enough, with that analysis, for X...2♦, IMO.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Jun 2 2007, 05:19 PM, said:

Funny, perhaps, but this looks to me like a good hand for 2♦ in fourth seat.

Invitational values.

true (at least by what I think you mean by invitational here)

Quote

Great suit.

true

Quote

Invites bidding a 5-card major, but probably not a four-card major.

what?? How does a bid that shows a great suit just invite partner to start bidding other suits?

Quote

Expresses doubt, albeit a subtle expression, about the club stopper.

Not really. Well I guess on some plane if by subtle you mean, really subtle.

Quote

Looks just about right.  I'd like a sixth diamond, but so what?

BTW, if fourth seat features intermediate jump shifts as an option, then X...suit should logically be stronger.

Well, if you are allowing this bid on 5 card suits when 6 is standard, and if you are pretending it invites partner to start bidding other suits when if anything it suggests just the opposite, and if you decided to ignore suit quality requirements (not talking about the hand in question, merely in general) then I guess that logic would follow. But for the rest of us who seem to have those requirements...

Quote

This does not seem strong enough, with that analysis, for X...2♦, IMO.

Standard bidding does not agree.

Despite all that I don't even think 2♦ is such an awful bid. Just a bid that is clearly more wrong than the alternative. But I might place 2♦ ahead of 1♦, which I don't mean as a knock at the 1♦ bidders as much as I mean 2♦ will usually work out fine. Double still is clearly best in my mind.