[firmit]

North
♠ 3
♥ QJT75
♦ Q7
♣ JT973


too weak for Dutch 2♥ 5-4

_N___E___S___W_
p -(1♥)-2N*-(p) unusual 10cards minor weak or strong
3♣- (p)-3♥*-(p) cue - partner got the strong variant - expecting 15+hp
?

It's time to show something more than club preference, right? Or is my hand still a minimum. What if partner has a void or singelton in hearts - my hand got potential, no?

[MikeRJ]

I would bid 5C, and be more worried about missing slam than going off in game.

If partner has 15+ points concentrated in the minors we may well have no minor suit losers, and partner is likely to be short in hearts (else the opponents have a huge spade fit).

Mike

[pbleighton]

5C. You have to bid these games, though they frequently go down

Peter

[skjaeran]

You've got to bid 5♣, now. I'd most probably have bid 4♣ previous round.

[jdonn]

skaeran, on Jun 23 2007, 10:07 AM, said:

You've got to bid 5♣, now. I'd most probably have bid 4♣ previous round.

Exactly. 4♣ last round, but now 5♣ this round.

[han]

Most Dutch players I know would not think this is too weak for a 2♥ opening.

Anyway, I agree with 4C and 5C in either case.

[firmit]

South
♠ 972
♥ -
♦ AKJ542
♣ AK85

We had not discussed bidding unusual NT with this hand, but partner was creative enough. His alternativ would be double, with a rebid of some kind. Probably ending up playing a partscore(?) he states.

He also expressed that I should consider 3♥ (!) or at least 4♣ - which the latter I agree very much with. But I did not expect partner to have this monster-hand...

Any thoughts about the 2NT bid?

[cherdano]

I hate the 2N bid. I would just overcall 2♦, maybe getting to play there... Only alternative is double.

[bhall]

I think that you are very close to making a 4♠ splinter over 3♥. The ♦Q must be gold, and partner cannot reasonably be short in spades. For sure, if you held the ♣Q, you should splinter.

Your partner clearly has not yet experienced the disasters that come from playing 6-4s as 5-5s. Playing in the 4-card suit after an early tap is a losing proposition, unless the longer suit is solid. As the others have said, he held a normal 2♦ overcall.

[han]

Agree that 2NT was a bad idea.

[helene_t]

I don't like 2N. Dbl and 2♦ are both fine bids so why make a flawed bid? With a stronger hand and a stiff spade I'd consider 2N with 6-4.

Having bid 2N, I think 3♦ as his next bid would show the 6-4 (or maybe rather 7-5, or 6-5 with better diamonds than clubs)

[P_Marlowe]

5C, nice hand.

The major question is, what is the
difference between 3H and 4C.
Both bids show add. strength, 3H
is most likely the stronger version,
and if it already sets trumps (?!),
you can bid 4S, showing the single.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: It is a mood / tactical thing, if you
should bid 3C or 4C, my partner will strive
to get in, if he faces a partner who already
passed once, he has some latidue, i.e.
he may be 5-4 sometimes, and sometimes
you may buy the contract with 3C.

[P_Marlowe]

firmit, on Jun 24 2007, 04:30 AM, said:

<snip>
Any thoughts about the 2NT bid?

I wondered why everybody "hated" the 2NT bid,
I believed the hand was 6-5, after discovering
that the shape was 6-4, I understand.

2D.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[SoTired]

I would not bid Unusual with a 2-card difference in length between the two suits. You could easily end in a 4-3 club fit rather than a 6-2 diam fit.

Three possible bids with this hand:
1) Takeout dbl. This gets spades involved in case partner has 5♠
2) Overcall 2D
3) 3H Western Q

[foo]

firmit, on Jun 24 2007, 04:30 AM, said:

South
♠ 972 ♥ - ♦ AKJ542 ♣ AK85

We had not discussed bidding unusual NT with this hand, but partner was creative enough. His alternativ would be double, with a rebid of some kind. Probably ending up playing a partscore(?) he states.

He also expressed that I should consider 3♥ (!) or at least 4♣ - which the latter I agree very much with. But I did not expect partner to have this monster-hand...

Any thoughts about the 2NT bid?

Using 2suited bids with 64's and well as 55's, 65's, and 66's is standard in many circles.

Your pd has a "Moose" AKA "Rock Crusher"

I also agree that you should not Advance ♠ 3 ♥ QJT75 ♦ Q7 ♣ JT973 the same way you would a zero count 4333. Expecially having already passed once.

So pa-(1♥)-2N!-pa;4♣-pa-??

Now pd should be very excited. In the absence of specialized agreements (like 4m being treated as 1430 in the minor) I like 4♥ here.

Advancer should bid 6♣ after 4♥.
(Overcaller should have bid 5♣ themselves with a merely game going hand.)

[whereagles]

After the huge underbid of 3♣, I have to some ground to cover and the only way to do that is to splinterize with 4♠.

[han]

foo, on Jun 25 2007, 10:42 AM, said:

Using 2suited bids with 64's and well as 55's, 65's, and 66's is standard in many circles.

Gulp.

[skjaeran]

foo, on Jun 25 2007, 05:42 PM, said:

Using 2suited bids with 64's and well as 55's, 65's, and 66's is standard in many circles.

What circles? Wait, I'd rather not know...

[Quantumcat]

Is there a lower limit on the 2N bid? What if pards has a 1 count? But then I suppose opponents have a slam/game on so its ok ... ?

[P_Marlowe]

Quantumcat, on Jul 3 2007, 05:56 AM, said:

Is there a lower limit on the 2N bid? What if pards has a 1 count? But then I suppose opponents have a slam/game on so its ok ... ?

No. The lower (and the upper limit for the weak case)
is depend only on how comfortable you and your
partnership feel.
If you feel great with a 0 count and 44 being red vs.
green go aheah.

It would not be the case for me, but this means nothing.

With kind regards
Marlowe