[Free]

Playing against good opps you hold:

Scoring: MP

---

The auction starts:
1♦ - pass - pass - 1♠
pass - 2♦* - ?
2♦ = (4)5+♥

What's your call?

EDIT: vulnerability was wrong, nobody vulnerable

[mich-b]

I like 2NT now , showing long ♣s , and also length in ♦, so partner can appreciate the degree of fit.

But , I strongly disagree with the pass on the previous round.
I dont believe in Passing partner's opening NV Vs VUL , with any hand with shape.

[andy_h]

Would have responded on the previous round. Because of that, I wonder if partner can still play me for this good of a hand. If I had 4D-6C I would definitely have responded right? Well in that case, I now make the 2H/2S/2NT call, whichever one shows 3D-6+C That sorta does make sense doesn't it, I mean, what else can I have, having passed on the first round.

[655321]

I also hate the initial pass.

[mtvesuvius]

The first pass is awful. Now I like 2NT, showing the minors. It's implied that I probably only have 3 or 4♦, so I should have probably 6+♣ although or rare occaisions I may have 5. Partner should be able to figure this out, although I'm worried he'll play me for a weaker hand.

[helene_t]

Didn't think of 2NT but I like it. Actually I like 3NT even better.

[ArtK78]

Since I don't know the partnership's methods or style, I am not going to say the initial pass is awful. I know a lot of fine players who would pass this hand.

I would bid 3♣ now, not 2NT. A 4 card disparity between clubs and diamonds is too much just to offer a choice. I must have some diamond tolerance or I would not be bidding at the 3 level after showing such a poor hand with my initial pass.

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on May 12 2009, 11:58 AM, said:

I must have some diamond tolerance or I would not be bidding at the 3 level after showing such a poor hand with my initial pass.

I think passing would be pretty awful with xxx Kx x JTxxxxx.

[cherdanno]

Free, on May 12 2009, 04:47 AM, said:

Playing against good opps you hold:

Scoring: MP

---

The auction starts:
1♦ - pass - pass

No, it does not.

[whereagles]

Pard either has an unbalanced min with 5+ diamonds or a balanced 12-14. It is therefore safe to bid.

I'm not sure I would have thought of 2NT, but it's definitely a good bid (if pard is on the same wavelength).

[JLOL]

3C

[Phil]

No strong feelings about pass the 1st round. Isn't it nice we get a 2nd chance to show our hand? 3♣ for me.

[Free]

Why so much objection to the pass? You all like 1NT better? Or 3NT if partner is strong?

[mikeh]

mich-b, on May 12 2009, 06:07 AM, said:

I like 2NT now , showing long ♣s , and also length in ♦, so partner can appreciate the degree of fit.

But , I strongly disagree with the  pass on the previous round.
I dont believe in Passing partner's opening NV Vs VUL , with any hand with shape.

Do you pre-alert this? Do you announce, on your CC, that at favourable, partner's one-level suit opening is forcing?

Either you do or you are playing a HIGHLY unethical method. Or, maybe, you are exaggerating your approach?

I know that it is popular to claim to be ultra-aggressive, and a lot of players are... and some of them win a lot, while others don't... and I can sympathize with and might sometimes make a bid on this hand on round one, but to claim that passing is an error, let alone a serious error, is absurd.

[gnasher]

If you respond 1NT you're quite likely to hear 2NT or two of a major. If I knew that I could get back to 3♣ after 2NT, I'd be happy to respond, but otherwise I'd pass.

Having passed, I don't think 2NT now shows such disparity - 2236 would be more typical. On this hand we'll probably belong in clubs even opposite a singleton honour, so I bid 3♣.

[gwnn]

mikeh, on May 13 2009, 05:30 PM, said:

mich-b, on May 12 2009, 06:07 AM, said:

I like 2NT now , showing long ♣s , and also length in ♦, so partner can appreciate the degree of fit.

But , I strongly disagree with the  pass on the previous round.
I dont believe in Passing partner's opening NV Vs VUL , with any hand with shape.

Do you pre-alert this? Do you announce, on your CC, that at favourable, partner's one-level suit opening is forcing?

Either you do or you are playing a HIGHLY unethical method. Or, maybe, you are exaggerating your approach?

I know that it is popular to claim to be ultra-aggressive, and a lot of players are... and some of them win a lot, while others don't... and I can sympathize with and might sometimes make a bid on this hand on round one, but to claim that passing is an error, let alone a serious error, is absurd.

Um... ?

[mikeh]

gwnn, on May 13 2009, 12:06 PM, said:

mikeh, on May 13 2009, 05:30 PM, said:

mich-b, on May 12 2009, 06:07 AM, said:

I like 2NT now , showing long ♣s , and also length in ♦, so partner can appreciate the degree of fit.

But , I strongly disagree with the  pass on the previous round.
I dont believe in Passing partner's opening NV Vs VUL , with any hand with shape.

Do you pre-alert this? Do you announce, on your CC, that at favourable, partner's one-level suit opening is forcing?

Either you do or you are playing a HIGHLY unethical method. Or, maybe, you are exaggerating your approach?

I know that it is popular to claim to be ultra-aggressive, and a lot of players are... and some of them win a lot, while others don't... and I can sympathize with and might sometimes make a bid on this hand on round one, but to claim that passing is an error, let alone a serious error, is absurd.

Um... ?

um? meaning what?

We have seen a lot of posts, in various threads, in which posters claim that they never pass their partner's opening bids, in various situations... yet not one of them ever posts that they announce this practice. I happen to think that the style is difficult to play since we couple, in standard, wide range openings with wider range responses, and we can end up with partner making a gf jumpshift with, say, 19 hcp, and responder forced to bid with a misfitting zero count, but that pales in comparison to the ethical issues... which no-one seems to want to recognize.

[Echognome]

Mike - I think it's because there is a difference between "with any hand shape" and "with any hand with shape".

As the poster does not define "with shape", this could be anywhere from quite controversial to quite obvious. I'm sure no one will pass 1♣ with xxxxxxxx xxx xx ---. And yet most would pass 1♠ with xx xxx xxx xxxxx. So it just depends on what the poster really means.

[cherdanno]

Wow, some are really arguing in favor of the first round pass? Isn't this obviously (to all except bean-, sorry, hcp-counters) a better hand than all the balanced 6 hcp hands we automatically respond with?

(Yeah I admit, I only posted this since I couldn't pass up the opportunity to call Mike a "hcp-counter".)

[jdonn]

mikeh, on May 13 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

mich-b, on May 12 2009, 06:07 AM, said:

I like 2NT now , showing long ♣s , and also length in ♦, so partner can appreciate the degree of fit.

But , I strongly disagree with the  pass on the previous round.
I dont believe in Passing partner's opening NV Vs VUL , with any hand with shape.

Do you pre-alert this? Do you announce, on your CC, that at favourable, partner's one-level suit opening is forcing?

I'm curious why you immediately think to ask this question of people who respond extremely light to opening bids. I might be misreading, but it seems awfully cynical to me.