[hotShot]

With a regular partner, 2nd seat overcall of a preempt are very sound, so this is a clear pass over 3♣. 4♦ would be RKCB for ♦, so this would be my choice so i can pick up the extra information on the way to 5♦.

With a pickup partner this is a simple 5♦.

[FrancesHinden]

4.5 diamonds, depending a bit on partner's protective style

I was going to bid 5, and I would do so at imps, but I'm being persuaded by other posts that perhaps 4 is enough. Partner is likely to raise if 5 is making. He knows aces are good cards as well.

We may miss game if our singleton club is the key to the hand.

The singleton club is a bit strange, and there's some indication that partner is strong balanced without a pure 3NT bid.

[the hog]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 28 2007, 04:41 PM, said:

4.5 diamonds, depending a bit on partner's protective style

I was going to bid 5, and I would do so at imps, but I'm being persuaded by other posts that perhaps 4 is enough. Partner is likely to raise if 5 is making. He knows aces are good cards as well.

We may miss game if our singleton club is the key to the hand.

The singleton club is a bit strange, and there's some indication that partner is strong balanced without a pure 3NT bid.

Sounds sensible to me.

[ochinko]

bid_em_up, on Jun 28 2007, 12:05 AM, said:

Although I think 4D describes the hand nicely, I would probably bid 5D at IMP's.

My thoughts exactly. I'd be hesitant to open 4♦ as this would shut off partner's spades, but now that partner has shown me a green card, I feel free as a bird.

3♠ is a gamble with very few chances to be right. I expect to be shortened fast, and as my hand is too weak and without outside entries those 6 diamond tricks that I expect could well turn into 0 tricks when spades are trumps.

Edit: I've never had a partner who would appreciate a joke so cruel as the bidding of 4♣ from me would be.

[Apollo81]

5♦, I don't think inviting makes much sense. Partner is going to downgrade cause his diamonds suck, and it;s right to be in game opposite some non doubles, like A10x Axxx xxx Axx

[han]

I voted for 5D.

[ochinko]

Apollo81, on Jun 28 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

5♦, I don't think inviting makes much sense.  Partner is going to downgrade cause his diamonds suck, and it;s right to be in game opposite some non doubles, like A10x Axxx xxx Axx

I don't get this. Don't you trust you partner will raise 4♦ to 5 with three Aces in hand?

What I would like to avoid in the unlikely case when partner has three Aces is to be raised from 5♦ to 6.

[skjaeran]

ochinko, on Jun 28 2007, 04:33 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Jun 28 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

5♦, I don't think inviting makes much sense.  Partner is going to downgrade cause his diamonds suck, and it;s right to be in game opposite some non doubles, like A10x Axxx xxx Axx

I don't get this. Don't you trust you partner will raise 4♦ to 5 with three Aces in hand?

What I would like to avoid in the unlikely case when partner has three Aces is to be raised from 5♦ to 6.

Huh? Partner haven't forgotten that you passed over 3♣. He won't raise you to 6♦ unless having something seriously good. 3 aces won't be enough.. I'm somewhere between 4 and 5♦'s. I'd probably just hog the hand and bid 5♦ at the table.

[han]

I don't think partner would raise 4D to 5 with the hand that apollo gave.

[whereagles]

me neither, but 4♦ still seems quite enough :/

[Al_U_Card]

P_Marlowe, on Jun 27 2007, 02:58 PM, said:

Hi,

it is 4D vs. 5D, 4D gives partner the chance to
show his 6 card mayor, and it gives him the
chance to check out, the downside, we may
make 4D+1.

And yes, I agree with pass the first time.

No question about that.

With kind regards
Marlowe

I concur as this sequence shows the hand I happen to hold......doh!

[jdonn]

5♦ is a gigantic overbid, partner never has the perfect takeout double people want him to have, especially when balancing! 4♦ is plenty. You start bidding 5♦ on these hands and partner stops being able to double ever.

[Free]

Agree with Josh here, 5♦ is waaaay too high. I can understand 4♦, and I still like 3♦

[Halo]

I voted for 3D because partner knows I will expect a light double here. 4D seems seems reasonable as well.

[gwnn]

While it's entirely reasonable that 3♦ is the highest making contract for any side, it is undoubtedly improbable. And I really hate to use one bid for both

xxxx
Kxx
Kxxx
xx

and this hand. I understand we're lacking space for adequate exploration, but this hand HAS TO be good enough for 4♦. And, for every magical minimum hand that partner won't raise on, there are, I fear, 3 others opposite which 5♦ will have ridiculous chances, some of which opps will smack.

4♦

[han]

I had the following thought, don't know if this makes sense to you all: The fact that we have a singleton club makes it more likely that partner has some values as he is less likely to have a singleton club himself. Also, partner with xx or xxx in clubs is less likely to raise 4D to 5D when it is right.

[cherdano]

Hannie, on Jun 29 2007, 05:24 AM, said:

I had the following thought, don't know if this makes sense to you all: The fact that we have a singleton club makes it more likely that partner has some values as he is less likely to have a singleton club himself. Also, partner with xx or xxx in clubs is less likely to raise 4D to 5D when it is right.

The first one seems right, I am not sure about the second one. I think ♣xxx is a good holding once partner jumps, ♣xx isn't.