[rogerclee]

Matchpoints

♠void ♥AT ♦AKTxxxxxx ♣Jx

1♦ - 1♠
?

Partner will bid 2♠ over 2♥, 3♠ over 3♦, 4♣ over 3♣, and 4♣ over 3N.

[Phil]

No strong feelings about this hand, but at MPs, I will bid 3N over 1♠.

I don't see how I can ever describe this, so I might as well advertise a long, good suit and some outside stops, which I (sort of) have.

Over 4♣, I will bid 4♥. I'm not sure what pard has in mind with 4♣, but cuebidding and showing my diamonds later seems like a good ploy.

[mich-b]

5D.

This is my best effort to describe hand with a lot of playing strength in Diamonds and extreme shape.

[jdonn]

5♦, by process of elimination since all lower bids are clearly bad. My second choice is 3♣, which in principle I actually don't mind but I just don't see how it helps me here.

[Codo]

5 ♦ but hate it.

[whereagles]

5♦ and I love it

[mtvesuvius]

5♦ I suppose, however at Matchpoints 3NT is not a bad idea.

[mikeh]

I would have opened 5♦, so what do I know?

As it is, having opened 1♦, I suppose the sexy bid is 3N. It is a horrific misdecription of this hand, but anything I do now will be a misdescription and 3N has the biggest upsides (and downsides, but it is mps)

If partner bids 4♣ over this, I bid 4♥ and await developments, but it sure sounds like slam is looming.

[gnasher]

I've never tried to play in 3NT with a nine-card suit, and I've never regretted it.

[cherdanno]

Why is 1D, then 5D a misdescription?

[hanp]

Agree with 1D then 5D. 5H by partner is now RKC.

[mikeh]

cherdanno, on May 13 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

Why is 1D, then 5D a misdescription?

it isn't, if an initial 5♦ were misdescriptive, and I can understand why many would feel it was. But I stated that, for me, I would open 5♦. And bridge is tough enough without using two auctions to describe the same hand. If this hand falls inside your definition of 5♦, then you shouldn't open it 1 and rebid 5. But if this is wrong for the initial 5♦, you can and maybe should. I don't think there is a universally 'right' answer: my views on this one may well be endorsed by a tiny minority

[mikeh]

gnasher, on May 13 2009, 05:37 PM, said:

I've never tried to play in 3NT with a nine-card suit, and I've never regretted it.

How often have you had the chance? I've only held a few 9 card suits in 36 years of playing. My most recent was xxx x void KQxxxxxxx, and partner opened 4♦, showing a no-loser unspecified major, so 3N wasn't an option

[jdonn]

I think it's almost impossible to claim 1♦ then 5♦ is misdescriptive because frankly no one has a clue what it shows other than tons of diamonds.

[whereagles]

mike: what would a bid of

1♦ 1x
5♦

look like to you?

[hanp]

jdonn, on May 13 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

I think it's almost impossible to claim 1♦ then 5♦ is misdescriptive because frankly no one has a clue what it shows other than tons of diamonds.

Some might think it shows a better hand than a 5D opening?

[jdonn]

hanp, on May 14 2009, 12:38 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 13 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

I think it's almost impossible to claim 1♦ then 5♦ is misdescriptive because frankly no one has a clue what it shows other than tons of diamonds.

Some might think it shows a better hand than a 5D opening?

I agree, but I don't think that disproves what I stated.

[cherdanno]

jdonn, on May 14 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

hanp, on May 14 2009, 12:38 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 13 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

I think it's almost impossible to claim 1♦ then 5♦ is misdescriptive because frankly no one has a clue what it shows other than tons of diamonds.

Some might think it shows a better hand than a 5D opening?

I agree, but I don't think that disproves what I stated.

How about tons of diamonds with a minimum opening in high cards?

[hanp]

Tons of diamonds and a hand that is worried about missing slam if opened 5D.