[TimG]

awm, on Jul 17 2007, 12:58 PM, said:

Three notrump didn't make. South claimed that 1♥ was the "textbook bid" but none of the other players at the table or the kibitzers seemed to have read this book.

I've read the book, though I forget the author. :-) Boy did the auction get out of control...

Quote

(3) South "bidding his shape"

South got a late start, but he did get around to bidding his longest suit!

[Gerben42]

So in what dimension did this game take place?

Either:

1♦ p 1NT 2♠
p p p

Or (probably best):

1♦ p p! 1♠
p 1NT

Now it's interesting if responder should come back alive with a Dbl. If he does, opponents have finished describing and they can play a comfy 2♦...

[mikeh]

In one partnership, 1♥ is the 'correct' bid.. but that partnership plays 1N openings as 11-14 in this situation, so the 1♦ opening is either on shape or a strong 1N, and 1♥ allows us to get back to the field position if he has 15-17 balanced with fewer than 4♥s and we may be picking off the opps' suit (or one of them) when he is shapely, plus we can usually get back to diamonds unless he raises ♥s.... and the capper is that a raise of 1♥ to 2♥ guarantees 4 card support and either shape or 15-not great 17.

This means that we can pass 2♥ and hope to survive.


I would NOT bid 1♥ in a strong NT method nor in any style in which a 3 card raise is permitted (as it is in all other partnerships of mine)

So put me down for 1N: I refuse to pass this hand.... it is too good (barely) and I want to preempt the majors as best as I can.

[mr1303]

1H is a psyche. No other word for it.

[mike777]

What!

No double of 2s?! Let's assume 1nt=5-11 hcp.

[skjaeran]

mr1303, on Jul 17 2007, 10:55 PM, said:

1H is a psyche. No other word for it.

Huh? If that's your systemical bid with this hand it's no psyche. Of course, you have to alert it and explain it as 3+. Btw, one polish pair had just this sequence on vugraph from Jesolo today, 1♦-1♥, alerted and explained as 3+♥'s.

[mikeh]

skaeran, on Jul 17 2007, 04:24 PM, said:

mr1303, on Jul 17 2007, 10:55 PM, said:

1H is a psyche. No other word for it.

Huh? If that's your systemical bid with this hand it's no psyche. Of course, you have to alert it and explain it as 3+. Btw, one polish pair had just this sequence on vugraph from Jesolo today, 1♦-1♥, alerted and explained as 3+♥'s.

While I alert 1♥ when it could systemically be 3 cards (only in one partnership, as posted earlier) I am not sure that it is alertable in ACBL land. The alert chart posted by the ACBL only requires a 'natural' 1 level suit response to be alerted if it is 'highly unusual' in shape or strength. Since it is only 3 cards in very limited situations, and opener treats it as 4 cards for the purposes of his initial rebid, it does not strike me as 'highly unusual'.... but I think that Active Ethics requires an alert....altho the ACBL has been known to punish unnecessary alerts... go figure

[cherdano]

I am shocked by the number of passers. This hand looks stronger than a typical balanced 6-count where everybody would bid.

[bid_em_up]

I'm shocked by the number of bidders. Passing now keeps you from arriving in silly contracts like 3N.

[cherdano]

bid_em_up, on Jul 19 2007, 07:24 AM, said:

I'm shocked by the number of bidders. Passing now keeps you from arriving in silly contracts like 3N.

So you pass with a balanced 6-count in order to avoid reaching a silly 3N?

[jdonn]

The 2♠ bid is a whole lot more to blame for the bad 3NT being reached then the totally automatic response to the opening bid, although 1NT is a lot better than 1♥. People worry too much about stoppers for their notrump bids, after all if partner has AKx xxx AKxxxx x or something then someone has to bid notrump. As for the strength of the hand, an ace and JTx of partner's suit is a lot stronger than some hands that everyone would reply on.

[kenrexford]

Responding 1♥ is something I considered. It is not a psychic. It is, as mentioned, a "textbook bid" that was described in an older Encyclopedia of Bridge that I own. Not my style, usually, especially if xxx, but plausible.

That being said, Opener bid quite a bit.

[ralph23]

♣♦♥♠

I sort of secretly admire whoever voted for 1♥ on this poll. My question is, why did he select 1♥ rather than 1♠ ?

2♦ I can't understand at all. Maybe someone can explain how that bid makes any sense at all ? It must be a systemic something-or-other.

Sign me up for 1NT and I'm prepared to apologize to partner if I need to. But I like the Jack and ten of ♦ together.

[awm]

Here's why I like 2♦, assuming it's natural and NF (not inverted):

(1) I'd like to keep the auction alive. This hand includes an ace and a mild fit for partner's opening bid -- there are many 1♦ openings that make game. I would also like to put some pressure on the opponents rather than let them in on the one level.

(2) Partner will almost always have 4+♦ for an opening 1♦ bid; I am not particularly concerned about a 3-3 fit, and even then opponents sometimes balance and let us off the hook.

(3) I don't expect 1NT to have any real play opposite a typical balanced 12-14 hand. If opponents pass it out I'm going down. On the other hand, if partner has 5♦ then I expect 2♦ to usually make.

(4) Opponents will not usually sell to whatever bid I make unless partner has a lot extra. After all, they seem to have the majority of the points and at least one major fit. If I raise diamonds, partner will know to bid 3♦ with five. If I bid 1NT, partner will usually either pass the buck to me (and I really don't want to be in balancing seat over 2M with this hand) or double a making contract for penalty.

(5) If partner does have a lot extra, I'd rather play 3NT from his side than mine.

[SoTired]

BTW - Playing "better minor" 1C=4+cards 80% and 1D=4+cards 95%. So there is little risk to 2D.

(Some play that 1C=2+ and 1D=4+ and usually 5+ except when opener is 4441)