[rogerclee]

IMPs, White vs Red

♠AQT ♥x ♦AKTxxx ♣Kxx

Uncontested

1♦-1♠
?

[Codo]

The bridge world death hand again?

2 NT to show 6 Diamonds, 3 Spades and a good hand.
Without this tool... read BWS. They discuss this hand since the fifties of the last century.

[655321]

2♣
I believe that is the bid of choice for these hands today.

[rogerclee]

655321, on Feb 15 2008, 02:24 AM, said:

2♣
I believe that is the bid of choice for these hands today.

Would never dream of making a NF 2♣ bid. Would not be surprised if a simulation shows partner passing 2♣ close to half the time.

Edit: Now Csaba bids 2♣! Wow :/.

I know it seems silly to post a thread for feedback and then to question that feedback, but I am just sort of astounded by the number of 2♣ bidders.

[gwnn]

Ask pard if he surely has spades and didn't mean to respond 1♥.

After that 2♣.

[lechcold]

2♣. You have comfortable continuation after each rebid. If partner passes....well, maybe it's not a disaster.

[the hog]

Codo, on Feb 15 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

The bridge world death hand again?

2 NT to show 6 Diamonds, 3 Spades and a good hand.
Without this tool... read BWS. They discuss this hand since the fifties of the last century.

Ditto. Second choice 3D. Never the non existent suit - deserves a 5C bid!

[lechcold]

The_Hog, on Feb 15 2008, 09:29 AM, said:

Codo, on Feb 15 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

The bridge world death hand again?

2 NT to show 6 Diamonds, 3 Spades and a good hand.
Without this tool... read BWS. They discuss this hand since the fifties of the last century.

Ditto. Second choice 3D. Never the non existent suit - deserves a 5C bid!

2N is awful. Do you like to declare notrump contract?
Say pard has ♠ Kxxx ♥ Kxx ♦ Qx ♣ Qxxx. Good luck ( lead♥Q).

After 5♣ I have no problem - bid 6♣. Pard must have values in blacks and at least 5 clubs.

[whereagles]

3♦ seems sooooo canonical.

[Codo]

lechcold, on Feb 15 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Feb 15 2008, 09:29 AM, said:

Codo, on Feb 15 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

The bridge world death hand again?

2 NT to show 6 Diamonds, 3 Spades and a good hand.
Without this tool... read BWS. They discuss this hand since the fifties of the last century.

Ditto. Second choice 3D. Never the non existent suit - deserves a 5C bid!

2N is awful. Do you like to declare notrump contract?
Say pard has ♠ Kxxx ♥ Kxx ♦ Qx ♣ Qxxx. Good luck ( lead♥Q).

2 NT is artifical, it shows diamond ad spades, not 18-19 balanced.
Somebody invented this to solve this particular problem: What to do with a strong hand with 6 in a minor and 3 card support compared to a strong hand without support for partner.

SO pd with your hand won´t always drive us to 3 NT. We will play 5 Diamonds or 4 Spade. We did not promise anything in Hearts or clubs.

[kenrexford]

I use a method here that I learned through the grapevine from the Kranyaks of Cleveland.

3♥, the only available jump reverse, to show a 6-3 strong hand with support, unknown shortness at this point.

[helene_t]

I suppose the book bid is 3♦ but I consider 2♣ a slightly lesser evil. Obviously it would be better to have a gadget for this hand.

[han]

I would bid 3D. The diamond suit is good enough and I never bid 3S on a 3-card suit.

2C is second choice but I don't see the need and 1D-1S-2C-2D-2S would still be an underbid imo.

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on Feb 15 2008, 07:41 AM, said:

I use a method here that I learned through the grapevine from the Kranyaks of Cleveland.

3♥, the only available jump reverse, to show a 6-3 strong hand with support, unknown shortness at this point.

I think in our system we have 3♥ defined as 'that hand from BWS'.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Feb 15 2008, 07:41 AM, said:

I use a method here that I learned through the grapevine from the Kranyaks of Cleveland.

3♥, the only available jump reverse, to show a 6-3 strong hand with support, unknown shortness at this point.

That's fine if you think this is game forcing....

Oddly enough Hog, I don't think my partner has ever raised my 2♣ rebid directly to 5♣, so I'll live with that rebid. In fact it's much more common that 2♣ is our best contract!

[pclayton]

2♣. The worst thing that can happen isn't playing 5♣. That hasn't happened yet.

The worst thing that can happen is that pard passes and we have a better partial.

OTOH, any high number diamonds will shut out a 5-3 spade fit. This is a real concern.

[kfay]

Easy 3♦ for me.

I play 2NT here as 3-6 with a partner of mine but that agreement is only viable when playing a strong ♣ IMO. I had a (very short) discussion with Han recently as to whether the meanings of 3♦ and 2NT should be reversed (i.e. 3♦ shows 3-6 and 2NT shows a max non-1♣ opener with 6+♦s)

I don't think 2♣ is crazy, like Roger, but this hand isn't THIS big a problem for me. 3♦ is neither misdescriptive nor an overbid. 2♣ is misdescriptive.

[andy_h]

Not playing anything fancy, I go with 3D.
2nd choice 2C.

[Fluffy]

3♦, second choice being open 1NT.

[cherdano]

I would bid 2♣. If partner bids 5♣ showing s.th. like Kxxx x x QJxxxxx than I am quite happy with that. I may have to guess between 5♣ or 6♣ but I gladly prefer either over the 3♦ that the natural 3♦ bidders are playing, and the 3♠ that the fancy 2N bidders are playing.