[awm]

First chair, favorable, IMPs. Your call with:

Scoring: IMP

---

You're playing 2/1 without any special agreements. 2♦ is a weak two bid.

[mike777]

As a nonxpert
1) one D if pard knows I open light
2) 2D otherwise.
3) I think pass just causes too many problems..rather make one bid and get this hand off my chest.

[655321]

Not bad.

OK, my turn:
One day, a Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Chemical Engineer and Computer Engineer were driving down the street...

[han]

Pretty sure I would bid 3D.

[Cascade]

This is 1♦ or 3♦ for me.

It is too good for 2♦ at favourable.

This all depends on style though as many play 3♦ wouldn't show much at this vulnerability.

We used to play that style and in a way we still do but a year or so ago we decided to widen the range of our favourable pre-empts at the top end to include more hands in the 8-9 hcp range (previously we only bid on crap) without dropping that many off the bottom. The rationale for this was that 8-9 point hands occur more often than the really rubbishy hands we were bidding on. Since 8-9(10) hands are more frequent we now create more problems for the opponents but occasionally cause a problem for our side.

[655321]

OK, already we have had several different suggestions, and obviously I was wrong to think this problem was a joke.

To me this is a 1♦WTP. Pass and 2♦ are really bad IMO. I can understand 3♦, but would never open it at favorable.

[mike777]

1) I would think it is antisystem to open 1d if partner expects us to be sound in first seat
2) I was taught to never open 3 level with an outside Ace...I see many do not mind, even at fav. vul.

[effervesce]

3D most likely. 2D is a underbid at favorable vul. Sure it's only 6 cards, but it is a nice suit with good pips.

[Codo]

My preempts favorable are very weak.
So I must open a little bid lighter too, which makes this a wtp 1♦ opening.

[rogerclee]

1♦ is clear for me. I am more than happy to reach 3N opposite a random GF.

[whereagles]

2♦. This still allows for pard to bid 2NT if he has some hcps and we get to our game.

[hrothgar]

UGLY UGLY problem

VERY light for 1♦
very strong for a white v Red 3♦

I wouldn't argue with either

Pass
1♦
3♦

I know that I would have deep regrets no matter what I bid

Time to dredge out the dreaded mixed strategy. (Not because I think its right on this hand, but rather because I think that my choice at the table would depend more on indigestion than bridge logic)

[y66]

Like this hand

1D

[skjaeran]

I'd open this 1♦. I'll rebid 2♦ even after a 1-over-1 and overcall by RHO.

I don't play wk2♦ non-vul. I'm too strong for 3♦ in 1st seat.

[andy_h]

1D. Good suit and an outside entry if worst comes to 22combined 3NT. I'm still liking my chances anyway.
Also agree that it's too good for 2/3D.

[foo]

awm, on Mar 20 2008, 02:15 AM, said:

First chair, favorable, IMPs. Your call with:

South,E/W,IMP,

652, 7, KQJ984, A62

You're playing 2/1 without any special agreements. 2♦ is a weak two bid.

Another hand where partnership agreements weigh heavily on what the "right" bid is.

Apriori, this is a standard Weak Two.
Top of range, but still a standard 2♦ bid.

R is going to be expecting more for 1♦ and less for 3♦. That leaves pass and 2♦.

2♦ it is.

[Cascade]

foo, on Mar 21 2008, 05:49 AM, said:

awm, on Mar 20 2008, 02:15 AM, said:

First chair, favorable, IMPs. Your call with:

South,E/W,IMP,

652, 7, KQJ984, A62

You're playing 2/1 without any special agreements. 2♦ is a weak two bid.

Another hand where partnership agreements weigh heavily on what the "right" bid is.

Apriori, this is a standard Weak Two.
Top of range, but still a standard 2♦ bid.

R is going to be expecting more for 1♦ and less for 3♦. That leaves pass and 2♦.

2♦ it is.

2♦ is far from standard white on red.

[awm]

I've been doing some experimenting with these sorts of hands recently. I have tried all four options (except psych) and I don't feel like any of them have worked out particularly well for me. Perhaps opening 2♦ has been qualitatively best.

The last time I held such a hand before this one yesterday, I opened 3♦. LHO bid 3♥ and RHO raised to 4♥. This was a rather low-percentage game but happened to be cold on the lie of the cards. At my teammates table, my hand opened 2♦, LHO passed, partner bid 3♦ and this passed out. So I lost a bunch of imps, but it's not clear how much is due to my choice of opening (LHO was aggressive to bid 3♥ and teammate was conservative to pass; in any case it seems weird that opening 3♦ won't shut opponents out but opening 2♦ will).

Anyways, having had a dazzling lack of success with 3♦ on the last attempt, this time I tried Pass. Partner opened 1♥ and we ended in 3NT. Partner's hand:

♠AJ
♥AKQxx
♦xx
♣KTxx

It seems likely that any opening I might've tried would get us to 3NT, although opening 1♦ might induce partner to bid a 6♦ slam I suppose. Of course, the "right" contract on these cards is 5♦ (3NT requires 4-4 spades and a diamond break or a squeeze, 6♦ requires 4-3 hearts and a favorable diamond position). It is not clear that any opening call is particularly likely to get you to 5♦. I was lucky and spades broke 4-4, making three.

I still don't know what's best, but I'll continue experimenting on these "tweener" hands. At vulnerable I would've opened 2♦ without really thinking about it, but my vulnerable preempts are quite sound.

[effervesce]

awm, on Mar 20 2008, 05:24 PM, said:

It is not clear that any opening call is particularly likely to get you to 5♦. I was lucky and spades broke 4-4, making three.

3♦ - 5♦?

[the hog]

1D for me. I wouldn't regard this as a standard 2D either.