[microcap]

As usual, a simple looking hand turns into disaster.....

IMPS TM, you hold the following white versus red:

Scoring: IMP

---

Partner opens 1♦, RHO overcalls 2♣ and it is your turn.

What do you do?

thanks in advance as always...

[matmat]

i pass

i can't bid 1nt, 2nt is an overbid
and i hate the shape and suits for any sort of negative double

[Fluffy]

double, wich is an overbid, but will have to leave with it.

[microcap]

It may not matter, but the 1 diamond bid promises 4+, and if exactly 4, opener has 17+ in a balanced hand...

[mikeh]

Classic nightmare hand (there seem to be so many). 1N is the value bid, but you can't do that

This is an advertisement for the style in which 1♦ promises 4+ (open 1♣ on 4=4=3=2). As it is:

pass: tough call to make, and may be only deferring the problem: what do we bid over a reopening double, and if LHO raises to 3♣, we probably get shut out.

double: gets hearts into play, but also, unfortunately, gets spades into play.. and this is not a good dummy for spades

2♦: clearly best if we know partner has 4+ diamonds... right on strength. But horrible opposite 4=4=3=2.

I would choose 2♦ as the least of evils, and pass as second. I don't like double because partner may get too enthusiastic.

Edit: just read the post re promised length in diamonds... as you can tell from the above, written before learning of this, I think it is VERY important info, and firms up my choice.

[matmat]

microcap, on Oct 2 2007, 12:17 PM, said:

It may not matter, but the 1 diamond bid promises 4+, and if exactly 4, opener has 17+ in a balanced hand...

uh... that might actually matter...

now a 2d call actually looks reasonable. p might eke out a 2M and away we go

[cherdano]

microcap, on Oct 2 2007, 11:17 AM, said:

It may not matter, but the 1 diamond bid promises 4+, and if exactly 4, opener has 17+ in a balanced hand...

Uhm yeah it matters a lot, I happily bid 2♦ now.

[jtfanclub]

matmat, on Oct 2 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

microcap, on Oct 2 2007, 12:17 PM, said:

It may not matter, but the 1 diamond bid promises 4+, and if exactly 4, opener has 17+ in a balanced hand...

uh... that might actually matter...

now a 2d call actually looks reasonable. p might eke out a 2M and away we go

Eh. I'll bid 2♦ anyways. If we end up in a 6 card fit, um, oops. But even in SAYC that isn't likely.

[skjaeran]

2♦, as long as partner promised 4+. With my regular 1♦show 4 if 4441 with singleton ♣, else 5+, so the even more obvious.

[han]

2♦ but really not happy about it. Pass is the alternative.

[jdonn]

Personally, in general (ie playing standard) I hate when my partner raises on hands like these. Defending could easily be right and it might also convince me to overcompete. However, with the given conditions I think raising is clear. Partner either has 5+ diamonds in which case we are fine or 17+ balanced in which case he will bid notrump next (or maybe 3♣ and then I'll bid notrump.)

[whereagles]

Amazingly, I'm going to PASS this hand, on grounds that if pard can't find another bid on himself, we probably have no game or partscore on.

[mr1303]

I'm bidding 2D, as long as 1D promises as many as 3.

When was the last time you were left to play in 2 of a minor anyway?

However, it may help partner to compete when appropriate.

[bid_em_up]

microcap, on Oct 2 2007, 12:17 PM, said:

It may not matter, but the 1 diamond bid promises 4+, and if exactly 4, opener has 17+ in a balanced hand...

Given this condition, 2D seems obvious, although pass isn't unreasonable.

[ArtK78]

I agree that 2♦ is clear with the conditions as stated (1♦ shows 4+ diamonds, and if only 4 diamonds, 17+ HCP). If partner is strong we can get to 3NT or 4♥ and otherwise 2♦ is fine.

[neilkaz]

microcap, on Oct 2 2007, 12:17 PM, said:

It may not matter, but the 1 diamond bid promises 4+, and if exactly 4, opener has 17+ in a balanced hand...

I'll try 2♦ now, but won't be surprised if it works out badly. With a normal SAYC meaning for your 1♦ opening I am passing for sure.

.. neilkaz ..

[pclayton]

I'll raise to 2♦. This is a nice benefit of playing a 5542 system.

[awm]

I'm not sure why people feel such a strong need to play in diamonds holding 3334 shape. In a style where 1♦ shows 4+ but could be a weak notrump with 4♦, I would not have any desire to raise. Why should a 4-3 fit with no potential ruffs in the 3-card hand be the right spot? Honestly I don't feel much desire to bid at all with this hand -- partner will balance with the vast majority of hands that can make game or even provide a good partial.

Of course, the given methods are essentially 1♦ = 5+♦ (I don't know what the opening is with various 4441s) so I suppose one may as well raise (assuming partner realizes that since 1♦=5+ we routinely raise on three and won't overcompete).

[jtfanclub]

awm, on Oct 2 2007, 06:03 PM, said:

I'm not sure why people feel such a strong need to play in diamonds holding 3334 shape. 

I don't. If the overcall had been 1♠, I'd have bid 1NT.

Partner is aware that 1NT isn't available and that I'm likely to lump the 1NT responses into 2♦. At least, I hope so.

How does it help to wait? Suppose your partner reopens with an X (very likely, I would think). What are you going to say, and how does that better define your hand than an immediate 2♦ bid?

[P_Marlowe]

Pass

With kind regards
Marlowe