[nige1]

Scoring: Matchpoints


_P (_P) 1♦ (1♠)
1N (_P) 2♦ (_P)
??
(Konrad Ciborowski posted this hand in another forum)
You are dealer (West).
What action do you take?
What would be typical hands for partner?
Would partner's 2♦ rebid normally show extra values

• In your experience?
  
• As a matter of general bridge knowledge?

---

[kenrexford]

2NT. I have stuff and a three-card fit.

[TylerE]

Pass. While this might occasionally miss a good 3N, I think bidding here is FAR more likely to generate a minus score. We could have a much better (in context) hand and still bid 1N on this auction. 2N should be more like a really good 10 or any 11.

[benlessard]

Even with hands where 1Nt will likely score better than 2D partner may bid 2D with 6D and extra shape (especially with a S stiff), the reason is that you wont necessary buy the hand at 1Nt anyway.

xx
xx
AKJxxx
KJx

since responder didnt make a neg X its likely opps have a H fit. Instead of passing and having to take a decision over 2H/2S why not bid 2D right now ?

Its sure that you would prefer to play 1NT but you have to be realistic about the chance of them not competing.

[kenrexford]

benlessard, on Nov 25 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Even with hands where 1Nt will likely score better than 2D partner may bid 2D with 6D and extra shape (especially with a S stiff), the reason is that you wont necessary buy the hand at 1Nt anyway.

xx
xx
AKJxxx
KJx

since responder didnt make a neg X its likely opps have a H fit. Instead of passing and having to take a decision over 2H/2S why not bid 2D right now ?

Its sure that you would prefer to play 1NT but you have to be realistic about the chance of them not competing.

Well, partner can't have that hand, as two of his Jacks are in Responder's hand.

[gnasher]

Quote

What action do you take?

3♦

Quote

What would be typical hands for partner?

Six diamonds, not enough to invite game, unsuitable for a 2♦ opening or a 1NT opening, and either unwilling to play 1NT or not expecting that we'll be allowed to play there. For example:
xx Axx AQxxxx Kx
xx AQxx AQxxxx x
xx xxx AKxxxx AQ
xx AQxx Q10xxxx A

Quote

Would partner's 2♦ rebid normally show extra values

No. Why should we have to suffer in 1NT when we belong in 2♦?

[jdonn]

Continuing my trend of voting for the 'other' option, I think 2♥ might be a good bid if partner understands what I'm doing. For example, xx AQxx AKTxxx x or something would be nice and partner would know our clubs are probably weak and we have a shot to find 5♦.

[hotShot]

I'll pass

Because:
- in my system partner can't have the extras needed for game.
- both opps passed last round so why should i drive the partscore up one level

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Nov 25 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

Continuing my trend of voting for the 'other' option, I think 2♥ might be a good bid if partner understands what I'm doing. For example, xx AQxx AKTxxx x or something would be nice and partner would know our clubs are probably weak and we have a shot to find 5♦.

I thought about that, but that call seemed to me to understae the club holding. Jxx is not bad in that suit. I'm not opposed to 2♥, personally.

[Jlall]

I'd just go with 3D myself. Obv 2D doesn't show anything extra.

[peachy]

2D does not show extras, in my experience, my opinion, by general bridge knowledge or by anything else AFAIK. Typical hands for partner include singleton spade and six diamonds.

[OleBerg]

3♦.

I have 2♥, 2♠ and 2NT available for stronger/more NT-oriented raises. 3♦ only shows that I would compete to 3♦ over a balance. Partner should only move with exceptional distribution.

I wouldn't expect partner to jump to 3 ♦ on something like:

♠ x
♥ Axxx
♦ Axxxxx
♣ AQ


Also, I would like to keep out a possible 2♥ balance, which migt lead to succesfull 3♥, out.

And no, 2♦ doesn't show extras.

[Codo]

Far too strong to pass. 2 Diamond denies extra strength, but shows extra length which is great.

I am still looking for 3 NT and if they had removed my 3 Diamond card from my bidding box, this would be my bid. I bet that in the long run 3 NT will outscore all passers on hands like this.

[Hanoi5]

I thought my hand was worth the 3♦ effort. Partner is supposed to be short in spades (and I have the Ace!) and he might have the ♥A or it might be with the overcaller and so he should be able to ruff at least one heart in ly hand. All in all this calls for a little raise.

[Phil]

3♦. It might find 3N and it might preempt a 2♥ balance by LHO.

[nige1]

Thank you for your views. IMO non-vul at pairs, your 1N usually scores well, whether you make it or not. Non-vul opponents should try to disturb it.

Partner's removal to 2♦, however, is usually constructive, showing extra values, with some interest in game. Not always. But usually. I claimed that this is inherent in the nature of Bridge; and thus "a matter generally known to Bridge players" .

[SIGH] once again I am proven wrong [/SIGH]

But thanks anyway

[aguahombre]

I thought general knowledge was that when responder has shown a limited-balanced hand (1NT usually 8 to 10 after overcall), and then Opener rebids his suit at the 2-level, opener wants to play it right there.

3D by responder is not an invite to 3NT, but it seems to be the right bid anyway(s) to avoid any cheap re-entry by the opps.

(Edit): If this were a director call, because 2D was slow, and responder did anything but pass or bid 3D, I would rule against (if I were a director or committee member).

[hrothgar]

nige1, on Nov 26 2009, 10:13 PM, said:

Thank you for your views. IMO non-vul at pairs, your 1N usually scores well, whether you make it or not. Non-vul opponents should try to disturb it.

Partner's removal to 2♦, however, is usually constructive, showing extra values, with some interest in game. Not always. But usually. I claimed that this is inherent in the nature of Bridge; and thus "a matter generally known to Bridge players" .

[SIGH] once again I am proven wrong [/SIGH]

But thanks anyway

Nigel

I saw the same discussion of the hand on another forum...
(Part of the reason that I didn't comment here)

Personally, I found the claim that a 2♦ rebid promises extra strength dubious at best. As I learned matters, the rebid promises length but says nothing about strength. I'd be surprised that to discover that my opponents had this agreement. I certainly don't believe that this is general bridge knowledge.

It's possible that this is a regional variation...
Bidding style in Scotland is probably quite different than what I am used to here in MA

[paulg]

hrothgar, on Nov 26 2009, 09:39 PM, said:

It's possible that this is a regional variation...
Bidding style in Scotland is probably quite different than what I am used to here in MA

Nigel and I are the two main posters from Scotland, with the odd junior occasionally chipping in. We have been comparing our answers to bidding competitions for at least ten years and the only possible conclusion is that we have very different styles.

However the rest of Scotland would be appalled if it were thought that either of our styles were representative of the norm

Paul

[nige1]

hrothgar, on Nov 26 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

I saw the same discussion of the hand on another forum...
(Part of the reason that I didn't comment here)

Personally, I found the claim that a 2♦ rebid promises extra strength dubious at best.  As I learned matters, the rebid promises length but says nothing about strength.  I'd be surprised that to discover that my opponents had this agreement.  I certainly don't believe that this is general bridge knowledge.

It's possible that this is a regional variation...
Bidding style in Scotland is probably quite different than what I am used to here in MA

Not that it matters much but I thought that 2♦ usually shows extra values - not necessarily high cards

Cardsharp is right: I'm no bidding pundit (as this thread demonstrates).