[Apollo81]

all white, MPs

♠AK76
♥7632
♦KT64
♣8

(p)-p-(1♠)-Dbl
(p)-?

[pclayton]

Glad its matchpoints. 1N is a lot easier.

[awm]

I will try 2♠. By passed hand this should be two places to play with good values. My plan is:

Over 3♣, I will bid 3♦ (red suits).

Over 3♦, I will bid 3♥.

Over 3♥ I will raise to four.

Over 3♠ I will bid 3NT.

Remember, we're a passed hand. This is a ridiculously good passed hand -- while I agree with the initial pass we have useful shape, great controls, a likely 4-4 major fit. I think we need to show the values and 2♠ does that while still maintaining a possibility of avoiding hearts if partner has some 2344 or 13(45) hand pattern.

[Apollo81]

awm, on May 23 2008, 01:31 PM, said:

I will try 2♠. By passed hand this should be two places to play with good values. My plan is:

Over 3♣, I will bid 3♦ (red suits).

Over 3♦, I will bid 3♥.

Over 3♥ I will raise to four.

Over 3♠ I will bid 3NT.

Remember, we're a passed hand. This is a ridiculously good passed hand -- while I agree with the initial pass we have useful shape, great controls, a likely 4-4 major fit. I think we need to show the values and 2♠ does that while still maintaining a possibility of avoiding hearts if partner has some 2344 or 13(45) hand pattern.

Over 2NT, ?

[awm]

3♦ I suppose over 2NT; 3NT also makes some sense but clubs might be a liability and hearts could still play better if we have a fit there. Honestly I'd be surprised if partner bids 2NT with me holding ♠AKxx but I suppose you never know.

[kenrexford]

2♠. Lots of what if's, incluidng Opener doing something. But, start with 2♠.

[Echognome]

awm, on May 23 2008, 09:31 AM, said:

I will try 2♠. By passed hand this should be two places to play with good values. My plan is:

Over 3♣, I will bid 3♦ (red suits).

Over 3♦, I will bid 3♥.

Over 3♥ I will raise to four.

Over 3♠ I will bid 3NT.

Remember, we're a passed hand. This is a ridiculously good passed hand -- while I agree with the initial pass we have useful shape, great controls, a likely 4-4 major fit. I think we need to show the values and 2♠ does that while still maintaining a possibility of avoiding hearts if partner has some 2344 or 13(45) hand pattern.

So if partner bids 3♦ and you bid 3♥, he will think you have the round suits and judge accordingly?

[gnasher]

Echognome, on May 23 2008, 11:46 PM, said:

awm, on May 23 2008, 09:31 AM, said:

I will try 2♠. By passed hand this should be two places to play with good values. My plan is:

Over 3♦, I will bid 3♥.

So if partner bids 3♦ and you bid 3♥, he will think you have the round suits and judge accordingly?

No. 2♠ followed by 3♥ shows four hearts and playability in another strain; it doesn't say what that other strain is.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on May 23 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

Echognome, on May 23 2008, 11:46 PM, said:

awm, on May 23 2008, 09:31 AM, said:

I will try 2♠. By passed hand this should be two places to play with good values. My plan is:

Over 3♦, I will bid 3♥.

So if partner bids 3♦ and you bid 3♥, he will think you have the round suits and judge accordingly?

No. 2♠ followed by 3♥ shows four hearts and playability in another strain; it doesn't say what that other strain is.

Why does 3♥ show hearts and another strain but 3♦ diamonds and hearts? Why is 3♦ not diamonds and "another strain?"

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on May 24 2008, 03:53 AM, said:

Why does 3♥ show hearts and another strain but 3♦ diamonds and hearts?  Why is 3♦ not diamonds and "another strain?"

With diamonds and clubs, having bid 2♠ presumably you'd raise clubs. With diamonds and notrumps you'd probably just forget the diamonds and make a limit bid in notrumps. That seems to leave diamonds and hearts as the only possible strains.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on May 24 2008, 05:01 AM, said:

kenrexford, on May 24 2008, 03:53 AM, said:

Why does 3♥ show hearts and another strain but 3♦ diamonds and hearts?  Why is 3♦ not diamonds and "another strain?"

With diamonds and clubs, having bid 2♠ presumably you'd raise clubs. With diamonds and notrumps you'd probably just forget the diamonds and make a limit bid in notrumps. That seems to leave diamonds and hearts as the only possible strains.

How about just diamonds and no clear direction?

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on May 24 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

How about just diamonds and no clear direction?

What would a 3♦ response to the double have shown?

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on May 24 2008, 02:59 PM, said:

kenrexford, on May 24 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

How about just diamonds and no clear direction?

What would a 3♦ response to the double have shown?

That would show diamonds and a clear direction.

I think that there is a wild difference between these two hands:

♠xxx ♥Axx ♦KQxx ♣Qxx
♠xxxx ♥Ax ♦KQxxx ♣Qx

I doubt that both are effectively covered by a 3♦ jump.

[benlessard]

Quote

♠xxx ♥Axx ♦KQxx ♣Qxx
♠xxxx ♥Ax ♦KQxxx ♣Qx

I doubt that both are effectively covered by a 3♦ jump.

Why not ? Both are easy 3D for me.

For me 2S has to suggest 2 place to play. But they rarely suggest H and a minor. We are in MP so most of the hands with major and a minor should just bid the major and most hands that are NT or minor should just bid nt. The tricky hands are between H and NT or both minors. Occasoinnaly you would get a hand that is 6m and 1 stopper where you have reason to believe that 3m might be better then 2Nt. As for 6m and 4M i prefer to just bid the major.

Over 2S partner should bid nt with a stopper or bid his best minor. Over his minor my 3H should suggest Hearts and stopper in nt.

On a side note if the doubler bid 3H its should be 100% GF and show the hand that was too good to overcall.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on May 25 2008, 03:00 AM, said:

I think that there is a wild difference between these two hands:

♠xxx ♥Axx ♦KQxx ♣Qxx
♠xxxx ♥Ax ♦KQxxx ♣Qx

I agree: one of them is an opening bid and the other is not.

If both hands are possible holdings, I agree that you need to cater for advancer's having a game force with just diamonds. In that case, maybe it's best to play 2♠ the same way as by an unpassed hand.

[Gerben42]

2♠.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on May 25 2008, 02:29 AM, said:

kenrexford, on May 25 2008, 03:00 AM, said:

I think that there is a wild difference between these two hands:

♠xxx ♥Axx ♦KQxx ♣Qxx
♠xxxx ♥Ax ♦KQxxx ♣Qx

I agree: one of them is an opening bid and the other is not.

If both hands are possible holdings, I agree that you need to cater for advancer's having a game force with just diamonds. In that case, maybe it's best to play 2♠ the same way as by an unpassed hand.

Actually, Iwould open both hands. I hesitated to include these because my feeling is that this affects the likely holdings. I can only have so many holdings to force as a passed hand.

I don't even disagree with your premise, by the way. I just wanted to explore it some more.

[Apollo81]

The winning call on the actual hand would have been 1NT (+120). Actions involving mentioning diamonds would score +110, and bidding hearts directly is either -50 or -100 depending on whether you end up in 2 or 3.

[kfay]

1NT wtp? Not enamored with playing ♥s, which is only other option for me.