[kenrexford]

Dealer is North. N-S are VUL, E-W and NV.

Dealer opens 1♦, passed to partner, who also passes. West balanced with a double.

Dealer bids 2♦. What do you expect Dealer to have?

[barryallen]

kenrexford, on Apr 17 2009, 07:21 AM, said:

Dealer is North. N-S are VUL, E-W and NV.

Dealer opens 1♦, passed to partner, who also passes. West balanced with a double.

Dealer bids 2♦. What do you expect Dealer to have?

This looks destined for both majors!

[gwnn]

A hand with 6 good diamonds. Could have 12 or 17 points (although people open 1NT with a big subset of said hands).

[se12sam]

When partner passed my 1♦, he basically has no interest in majors or no HCP (many will respond 1♠ with even 3-4 HCP and 4-card suit).

If I were North, I'd make the 2♦ raise with many different types of hands. It's meant to be more of a nuisance bid (even if it causes very little obstruction). I'd say it normally should show 12-15 HCP and 5+♦ 4M (usually spade suit) or 12-16 with 6-card (but semi-balanced).

IMO, most opps find it difficult to sit a 2♦ dbl (for penalty) barring a trump stack

[Trinidad]

I agree with gwnn. North shows a decent suit and says: "Partner, Please lead diamonds. I really have them and not just the Jxxx that I orginally promised". Point count is not that important.

That means that he could have:

♠xxx ♥x ♦AKJTxx ♣Axx

(2♦ won't make and could be off 2, but it's not a blood bath and a diamond lead is best against any contract by opponents)

or

♠KQJ ♥x ♦KQJTxx ♣Axx

(2♦ has a decent chance of making, why not bid it?)

but not

♠AQx ♥Ax ♦Qxxxxx ♣KQ

(You don't want to play diamonds, since you will go down (a lot). You don't want a diamond lead. Just let the opponents play.)

How is your sanity doing?

Rik

[jdonn]

This thread title is destined not to end well.

[cherdanno]

Reading the title, the answer seemed clear, but after reading the post I would just say "good 6+ diamond suit, not ashamed of opening (might make opposite partner's bust, or might go down 2 on a bad day)".

[ArtK78]

A hand that is a full opening bid with 6 good diamonds. You would have opened a weak 2♦ except for the fact that you have too good of a hand for a weak 2 bid (perhaps much better).

This seems so obvious. Why is this thread here?

[JLOL]

It should be a very good suit imo.

[Free]

Good 6 card suit, strength is irrelevant imo.

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on Apr 17 2009, 12:49 PM, said:

This seems so obvious. Why is this thread here?

Well, here's perhaps Part II of the question.

I suppose I thought that 2♦ should be a tad stronger than anyone here is suggesting. Both for descriptive reasons and for sheer neck-saving reasons. At least, red on white.

I mean, had Opener bid 1NT at this point instead, this would show about 18-19. A new major call or 2♣ would likewise be a very strong call.

If the colors were different, then it seems like pure intervention has something to say for it. But, RvW seems different to me. I would have expected something approximating a sound 1-3 jump rebid had Responder actually bid, or better.

I suppose I am insane. LOL

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Apr 17 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Apr 17 2009, 12:49 PM, said:

This seems so obvious.  Why is this thread here?

Well, here's perhaps Part II of the question.

I suppose I thought that 2♦ should be a tad stronger than anyone here is suggesting. Both for descriptive reasons and for sheer neck-saving reasons. At least, red on white.

I mean, had Opener bid 1NT at this point instead, this would show about 18-19. A new major call or 2♣ would likewise be a very strong call.

If the colors were different, then it seems like pure intervention has something to say for it. But, RvW seems different to me. I would have expected something approximating a sound 1-3 jump rebid had Responder actually bid, or better.

I suppose I am insane. LOL

Think of it as one of those bids that show 'extras', but that can also come in the form of extra shape or even a really good suit, to some extent.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Apr 17 2009, 03:38 PM, said:

Think of it as one of those bids that show 'extras', but that can also come in the form of extra shape or even a really good suit, to some extent.

Well, here's the problem. What should partner have to enter/force the three-level?

Here's the actual problem:

1♦-P-P-X
2♦-2♠-???

Responder might have a contextually interesting hand, or at least one that I would consider contextually interesting. If Responder thinks that Opener probably has some interesting 1363 hand, then a hand like ♠xxx ♥J10x ♦10xx ♣Q10xx looks really powerful to me. I love this hand.

I mean, give partner something opposite this like ♠x ♥AQx ♦AKJxxx ♣KJx. This may well score up a game, so competing to the three-level is surely right, and making a game move (3♣?) even has merit.

What about something like ♠xxx ♥xx ♦Qxx ♣Qxxxx? Opposite the proposed hand, 5♦ looks really good. If Opener drops the heart Queen, the defense might easily not find the killing defense. Convert the diamond Jack to the heart King (instead of the Queen) and 5♦ cannot be beat.

But, if Opener bids 3♦ with all of these hands, he could very easily catch Q10xx behind, a yarb dummy, and -800.

Sure, Opener might be a bit worse than these 18-counts, but I (did) look like an idiot if (when) I (did) bid on as Responder (even making a game try).

My actual hand was ♠xxx ♥J10xx ♦xxx ♣Qxx, and I bid 3♣. Partner bid 3♦, hammered for -800, and the table was baffled by my bidding at all, and astounded that I had actually made a game try.

[hanp]

kenrexford, on Apr 17 2009, 04:04 PM, said:

♠xxx ♥J10xx ♦xxx ♣Qxx

I LOVE THIS HAND

[jdonn]

I would redouble with x AQx AKJxxx KJx.

Raising the diamonds on your hand is aggressive. Trying for game confirms you have lost your sanity.

[ArtK78]

Considering that opener could have had xxxx KQxx Kxx Ax or similar for his 1♦ opening bid, he really owes it to partner to bid 2♦ holding x Axx AKJTxx Qxx when RHO balances with a double.

And Josh is certainly right that holding x AQx AKJxxx KJx opener would redouble.

[By the way, Ken, I don't think that your actions on this particular hand change anyone's perception of your sanity or lack thereof.]

[helene_t]

ArtK78, on Apr 17 2009, 10:20 PM, said:

[By the way, Ken, I don't think that your actions on this particular hand change anyone's perception of your sanity or lack thereof.]

lol yes, most of us probably already made our minds up

[MarkDean]

Ken, I think that if partner can make game opposite xxx JTxx xxx Qxx, he will not pass 3♦. To make a game try, I would want more, perhaps xxx xx xxxx Kxxx. I would not redouble with your example hand: my partners respond with almost any hand with five spades, so I am more interested in competing.