[MattieShoe]

Scoring: MP

P (P) P (1♦)
P (1♥) P (2♦)
P ?

---

Pass? 2♥? 2♠? 2NT? Bid 1!S in 1st round and 2!H in second round?

Was in a free MP tournament, I scored 9.5% on this hand. On the bright side, we finished 14th out of 44 teams overall, 50% or higher on 7 of the 9 hands... :-)

[Jlall]

2N, passing at MP could work but I think your hand is just too good and partner didn't open 2D in 4th so there's some inference there.

[Codo]

I would try 2 ♠. I am a passed hand, so partner will play me for 5 hearts, 4 spades and a maximum pass, seems a good describtion of my hand.

[the hog]

Codo, on Sep 24 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

I would try 2 ♠. I am a passed hand, so partner will play me for 5 hearts, 4 spades and a maximum pass, seems a good describtion of my hand.

As partner does not have 4S, and probably not 3H I don't really know what this 2S bid is meant to achieve.
I would pass. The stiff D does not fill me with enthusiasm.

[vuroth]

2NT. This is MPs, after all.

[andy_h]

This might depend a little on partner's tendency to raise 2♥ with 3 card support. But regardless, 120 might get us a good score and with partner not opening 2♦ in 4th seat like jlall mentioned, partner should have an ok hand. If his diamond texture is good, then 3N is looking good or if partner surprises us with 3♥ then that's just as good.

[MattieShoe]

2NT is what I did...

Scoring: MP

P (P) P (1♦)
P (1♥) P (2♦)
P (2NT) P P
P

---

Assuming this bidding, would you pass 2NT or would you move it back to diamonds?

Next question -- Would you opened bid 2!D as north, or perhaps 3!D?

[helene_t]

yeah I would open 2♦, absolutely. No 3-card major so this hand just wants to play 2♦. And with 12 points including a sec AK, 2♦ is no an underbid, despite the good diamond suit.

[pooltuna]

MattieShoe, on Sep 24 2009, 12:35 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

P (P) P (1♦)
P (1♥) P (2♦)
P ?

---

Pass? 2♥? 2♠? 2NT? Bid 1!S in 1st round and 2!H in second round?

Was in a free MP tournament, I scored 9.5% on this hand. On the bright side, we finished 14th out of 44 teams overall, 50% or higher on 7 of the 9 hands... :-)

Let's see what partner did not bid. 1♠ hence no 4 card biddable ♠ suit. 1NT means he probably does not have a balanced hand. 2♣ no 4 card ♣ suit.2♥ no 4 card support. 3♦ lacks the strength for this bid. The only bid that clearly could work out is 2♥ since partner could conceivable have 3 card support but his 2♦ bid suggests 6. I would bail over 2♦ and not sweat the result.

[Ant590]

One tiny point not at all related to the question:

With bidding sequences, it's usual to place the opponents' bids in parentheses rather than your own. Also if the opponents are silent throughout it's usual to just put our side's bids.

[MattieShoe]

Ant590, on Sep 24 2009, 09:07 AM, said:

One tiny point not at all related to the question:

With bidding sequences, it's usual to place the opponents' bids in parentheses rather than your own. Also if the opponents are silent throughout it's usual to just put our side's bids.

Thanks. I assumed the () was just to help differentiate. I'll do it right next time :-)

[655321]

pooltuna, on Sep 24 2009, 08:51 AM, said:

The only bid that clearly could work out is 2♥ since partner could conceivable have 3 card support but his 2♦ bid suggests 6. I would bail over 2♦ and not sweat the result.

Umm, if I am reading this Vizzini-like quote correctly, you are suggesting that 2♥ is a plausible rebid over 2♦.

2NT and Pass look to me like the only choices, personally I like 2NT.

2♥ is a pretty horrible bid.

[pooltuna]

655321, on Sep 24 2009, 09:12 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Sep 24 2009, 08:51 AM, said:

The only bid that clearly could work out is 2♥ since partner could conceivable have 3 card support but his 2♦ bid suggests 6. I would bail over 2♦ and not sweat the result.

Umm, if I am reading this Vizzini-like quote correctly, you are suggesting that 2♥ is a plausible rebid over 2♦.

2NT and Pass look to me like the only choices, personally I like 2NT.

2♥ is a pretty horrible bid.

I wouldn't call 2♥. I was just pointing out the possibility that it could work out.

[jdonn]

I think partner has a (maximum) 2♦ opening bid in 4th seat. Anyway I definitely agree with not passing (don't honestly care much between 2♠ and 2NT to be honest), if north had the queen of diamonds more game would be cold on 4-3 clubs either way or no club lead.

[neilkaz]

I'd have opened this hand a 4th seat 2♦ but some players and especially pickups might have different ideas about what a 4th seat 2 opening should look like.

As for your 2nd bid, I also bid 2NT and if pass (I would pass it as opener) it may make and score better than ♦ and if opener is max, he can put you into 3NT.

[Phil]

Agree North has a 2♦ opener in 4th chair. This is a good thread for the BIs to get a feel for what a 4th seat weak 2 looks like.

If South (accurately) plays North for 13-15 or so, then passing isn't a good idea. I prefer 2♠. I don't like 2N with Axx of clubs if I can avoid it.

[the hog]

I would have passed this hand in 4th seat. You do not have the requisite Casino count - a guide that has served me well.
The problem with the 2NT bid is not that it is MPs and 120 is a better score than 110, but rather that it will encourage partner to go on to an unmakeable 3NT in many cases.

[andy_h]

The_Hog, on Sep 25 2009, 12:25 PM, said:

I would have passed this hand in 4th seat. You do not have the requisite Casino count - a guide that has served me well.
The problem with the 2NT bid is not that it is MPs and 120 is a better score than 110, but rather that it will encourage partner to go on to an unmakeable 3NT in many cases.

Pass in 4th seat based on that rule? Really? We have ♠AK what makes you think the opponents will get into the auction? (and they're also r/w) We could easily be making 2 or 3♦ for an easy 110 with this solid opening hand!

[the hog]

andy_h, on Sep 25 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Sep 25 2009, 12:25 PM, said:

I would have passed this hand in 4th seat. You do not have the requisite Casino count - a guide that has served me well.
The problem with the 2NT bid is not that it is MPs and 120 is a better score than 110, but rather that it will encourage partner to go on to an unmakeable 3NT in many cases.

Pass in 4th seat based on that rule? Really? We have ♠AK what makes you think the opponents will get into the auction? (and they're also r/w) We could easily be making 2 or 3♦ for an easy 110 with this solid opening hand!

Well Andy IF you play against soft opponents, maybe they won't get into the action. If you play against anyone decent....

[jdonn]

Pass that hand in 4th seat? uhhhhh......