[mike777]

A8...AK42....AKT53....T6
IMPS BOTH VUL.

P=P=(1S)=X
P=2D=P=?

Your rebid and why?

[Echognome]

OK, I'll bite. I GF with 2♠. What's happens next?

[awm]

I'll bid 2♠, showing a strong hand but not necessarily game forcing.

I can imagine playing a diamond partial if partner has garbage, but I'd really like to hear 2NT and raise it to three. If partner makes some forward going call (but not 2NT) we can try to determine whether 3NT or 5♦ is best.

[whereagles]

I'm gonna take a flier at 3NT because 2NT is the most annoying contract out there next to 3M

[mikeh]

Echognome, on Jul 3 2007, 05:05 PM, said:

OK, I'll bite.  I GF with 2♠.  What's happens next?

Few play 2♠ as gf... at least, not in NA. I'm with Adam on this one, altho I'm close to a more modest 3♦. Yes, I have read the other thread.. I read and answered it before I saw this one.

I think the hand is just not quite good enough for 2♠. But it is close, and I may be letting knowledge of what I suspect was the companion hand influence me.

My concerns are that the hand is the wrong shape to look for an 11 trick game and if partner has spade and ♦ values, he won't have a lot elsewhere since he didn't bid 1N. And it is not as if 3♦ is a sign of weakness.

I can construct hands on which he will pass 3♦ and bid 2N over 2♠ and we make 3N, but that is a narrow landing area.

So I am bidding 3♦.. but I might have tried 2♠ if my mind weren't posioned.. I can't tell.

[foo]

mike777, on Jul 3 2007, 05:04 PM, said:

♠ A8 ♥ AK42 ♦ AKT53 ♣ T6
IMPS BOTH VUL.

P=P=(1S)=X
P=2D=P=?

Your rebid and why?

Nice hand.

Clearly we want to make a move with this, but what move?

pd could have been forced to bid 2♦ on a (32)44 =zero= count by our T/O X.
So as nice as this hand is, forcing to game is not a good idea.

I do not like offering NT as a strain when ♣'s are wide open, especially at IMPs.
(I figure that pd will strain to bid 1N rather than 2♦ with any close to suitable hand.)

That leaves game in ♦'s.
Our choices to pursue that are 3♦ and 4♦.

Let's assume pd has 6-9 HCP and 4-5 ♦'s.
Can we make 5♦ opposite most of those hands?
It's close. I want to bid 3.5♦'s.

I'm Red @ IMPs. I'll bid 4♦.

[Fluffy]

I am close to 3♦ but hey! I am full of controls. 2♠, I'll bid 3NT next, but I wan't partner to have a chance to play it.

I don't fully agree with initial double but its ok.

[kenrexford]

2♠ was my first vote. Several reasons:

I'm primed out. The opponents are passing throughout. Delicate bidding of minor-oriented hands by the overcalling side is B.S. that I don't want to hear about. I can see 8 tricks, and I bet there's a ninth.

Partner's next call will often be 3♣. That's what I want to hear.

Partner's next call may be 2NT. I can live with that. If Opener has 5-5 in the blacks, I'll pay off.

However,

If partner's next call is 3♦, he has Qxx in hearts and four diamonds and I'm bidding 3NT anyway.

So, I'd bid 3NT now. 3NT does not show some esoteric range.

Nope -- thought more about this. 3NT is silliness. I need club length or a card. 2♠ will tell me that. If partner bids 3♣, I bid 3NT. Any other interesting call, I support diamonds.

[helene_t]

Jlall, on Jul 4 2007, 08:03 AM, said:

it's close, I'd go with 2S though.

Why close? What's the alternative? 3N may belong in partner's hand. 3♦ is not enough, I think.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the question is, do I want to force higher
than 3D oppossite a dead man? My answer
is no, hence 3D, ... and yes, I know, partner
is not dead, but I dont know.

I would have prefered 2D, since I am kind
of enplayed if 3S comes back to me, but
as the auction went, X was ok.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[skjaeran]

It's close. But I'd go for 3♦. And I agree with the initial double, this is not a 2♦ overcall.

I think 2♠ will lead to too many non-making 3NT. 3♦ might miss 3NT on occasion, but I'm quite confident that the 3NT's we reach after 3♦ will make.