[mtvesuvius]

All NV at IMPs, partner deals, you hold:

♠ Ax
♥ ATx
♦ KTxxxx
♣ xx

1♣ - (Pass) - 1♦ - (X)
2♣ - (Pass) - ?

EDIT: I will try to keep everyone posted about how we are doing, and the interesting hands... Every night when I get back to the room after Zip KOs . Anyway, we lost today's match by 2 IMPs after our partners went down in an easy game, and some of the hands that I posted we lost on... I guess my posting average won't suffer that badly after all .

[rogerclee]

3N

[Phil]

2N is plenty with no club filler and single spade stop.

3♦ is a distant second choice because the suit sucks.

[quiddity]

3N. quick tricks, 6-card suit, plus some support for partner's suit.

[mohitz]

I would vote for 3NT. Partner's club suit should provide us lots of tricks and any finesses required are possibly on because of LHO's double.

[655321]

Sign me up for 3NT too.

[P_Marlowe]

3D.

Ugly suit, I agree, but I have a 6 carder.

2NT is ok.

Blasting to game is ..., sry.
But open all your partners ultra sound?
Or do we think, that partner has forgotten the fact,
that we play IMPs?

And if you think the quality of the diamond suit rotten,
who tells us, that partners clubs suit is any better?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenrexford]

mohitz, on Apr 14 2009, 12:51 AM, said:

I would vote for 3NT. Partner's club suit should provide us lots of tricks and any finesses required are possibly on because of LHO's double.

I think his is exactly opposite of reality, as the likely needed finesses are in clubs. But, 3NT is right anyway, IMO.

[vuroth]

My Intermediate vote is for 2NT. I don't really want to hang partner for opening a rule of 20 hand, and if I don't say NT we might not get there.

[kenrexford]

vuroth, on Apr 14 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

My Intermediate vote is for 2NT. I don't really want to hang partner for opening a rule of 20 hand, and if I don't say NT we might not get there.

If partner has a Rule-of-Twenty hand, he can pass the double.

[jdonn]

I'm sick I guess, but I think psyching 2♠ is worth thinking about. It depends who partner is, since if he bids 3♣ and you bid 3NT some partners will never pull even when they should, and that's the case where it could work.

[Gerben42]

Let's talk about meanings for the bid first. Can I ask what 1♣ (p) 2♦ would have shown?

2NT sounds like I have 3451, which is not really what I have.

3♣ sounds like I want to avoid opponents bidding majors, and not really inviting. Also not what I have.

3NT sounds a bit optimistic to me. 2♣ by partner could have been a blocking bid and doesn't sound particularly strong.

So we bid some number of ♦. I prefer 2♦ as invitational, or directly 1♣ - 2♦ as invitational (probably best). Otherwise you run into the problem of having to jump into 3♦ with a less-than-super suit.

[kenrexford]

Gerben42, on Apr 14 2009, 10:59 AM, said:

Let's talk about meanings for the bid first. Can I ask what 1♣ (p) 2♦ would have shown?

2NT sounds like I have 3451, which is not really what I have.

3♣ sounds like I want to avoid opponents bidding majors, and not really inviting. Also not what I have.

3NT sounds a bit optimistic to me. 2♣ by partner could have been a blocking bid and doesn't sound particularly strong.

So we bid some number of ♦. I prefer 2♦ as invitational, or directly 1♣ - 2♦ as invitational (probably best). Otherwise you run into the problem of having to jump into 3♦ with a less-than-super suit.

What the Heck is all of this "sounds like" gibberish?

Partner made a free bid of 2♣. That usually shows extras. Why does it "sound like" a blocking bid? What about the bid doesn't "sound" particularly strong?

What's with the 3NT call "sounding like" 4315? It sounds like a 3NT call. If you lean in closely, you can almost hear, "I think 3NT is our best contract." I don't hear, "I want to show the precise pattern of 4315 or 3415 so that you can decide that 3NT is our best contract."

Then, more sounding. 3♣ doesn't sound like a blocking call either. It sounds like a 3♣ call. It either is or is not inviting. This concept of "not really inviting" is a mystery to me. Does that mean that the call is inviting, but I'm just kidding? Is partner supposed to have a feeling that 3♣ has this joke meaning because it sounds like a joke?

Finally, you have 3NT sounding optomistic. Actually, that's the one thing I can agree with. All of my 3NT calls sound optomistic. When the dummy hits, I might suddenly get pessimistic, but I always have optomism until then.

The last point is really strange. What the heck difference could the meaning of 1♣-P-2♦ have? What, you know some people who play this as showing 3352 shape and limit values? Is there some other meaning that would tailor the options now?

[helene_t]

3♣ if that is invitational rather than blocking. I think it is invitational. Otherwise I mess around with a major suit, probably a boring 2♥ since I was too unimaginative to come up with the psyche suggested by Josh.

[bill1157]

for beginner-intermediate or an infrequent partnership (i.e. not overly complicated) I think 3♦ is the best, most practical bid.

Bill

[rogerclee]

3♦? Please think!

[JLOL]

I would just bid 2N with myself.

[kenrexford]

JLOL, on Apr 14 2009, 02:35 PM, said:

I would just bid 2N with myself.

What -- you suck as a declarer?

[bill1157]

rogerclee, on Apr 14 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

3♦? Please think!

No club fit; ♠Ax is a nightmare for nt unless pd has ♠stoppers also. Are you so sure you want to be in game? No. so a non-forcing invitational 3♦ is fine.

Bill

[hanp]

Partner freely bid 2C, right? That doesn't sound like extras to me but it does sound like clubs. I would much rather bid 3C than 3D.