[joe3nt]

It's Imps.

The vulnerability on this one should not matter - it's the logic which I am after.

In second seat, your partner opens 1C, and with a 1D overcall on your right, you hold this hand:

♠ AQ7
♥ AQ
♦ Q943
♣ 9843

What do you now do, and why?

Joseph

[TWO4BRIDGE]

My choice is between 2D! = limit raise+ ( but I rather have 5 cards Cl ), or 3NT .

I'll choose 3NT ( eventhough I don't really like it ) .

[JLOGIC]

3N

[BunnyGo]

3NT.

[jmcw]

Bid 3NT, you have the values, the stops, and no interest in playing anywhere else.

[mfa1010]

3NT. 2♦ without the ♦9.

[Phil]

This was also posted on Bridgewinners.com.

I think this is an obvious 3N call, but if someone comes from a rubber bridge background, I can understand a pass.

[phil_20686]

Would never dream of passing, sounds absurd.

But I would definitely consider showing club support depending on opening areements. At acol for example not showing your club support would be absurd.

After all Kxx Kxx x AKxxxx and you would be pretty happy in 6c. That is hardly an impossible hand. I can certainly concieve hands which might pass 3N where grand is cold.

[nigel_k]

I'll bid 2♦ and 3NT next time. If partner wants to play in clubs after that I have a pretty good hand for him.

[Lurpoa]

JLOGIC, on 2011-August-07, 08:10, said:

3N

Why ?

[mich-b]

nigel_k, on 2011-August-07, 14:28, said:

I'll bid 2♦ and 3NT next time. If partner wants to play in clubs after that I have a pretty good hand for him.

Agree with that. Though my ♣ support is not great, sometimes that is what my partner needs to hear , especially if he is short in ♦s.
a direct 3NT usually implies more than 2 points in their suit , and since my hand can be very useful for play in ♣s I dont see why I shouldnt show it planning to bid 3NT on the next round

[jonottawa]

I bid joe3NT. I've got nothing extra and no points in ♣ and only 4 of them I'm not bidding 2♦.

[benlessard]

Quote

Agree with that. Though my ♣ support is not great, sometimes that is what my partner needs to hear , especially if he is short in ♦s.
a direct 3NT usually implies more than 2 points in their suit , and since my hand can be very useful for play in ♣s I dont see why I shouldnt show it planning to bid 3NT on the next round

Same thing here. I find 3Nt a bit lazy. The result of this hand is highly relevant of the number of D partner has. So why not let him some bidding space ?

[rhm]

phil_20686, on 2011-August-07, 12:37, said:

Would never dream of passing, sounds absurd.

Why is this absurd? Are you afraid that 1♦ will become the final contract? What is the hurry to bid 3NT?
I neither like to show a forcing ♣ raise nor commit the hand to 3NT immediately. If a direct cuebid shows a strong raise, a delayed cuebid shows a strong hand without direction.
You know of at least 9 ♦s between you and RHO; Partner could be void in ♣. Granted the most likely contract is 3NT, but 3NT could be down while 6♣ could make.
I intent to cuebid next or bid 3NT, but if for example LHO raises ♦ and partner rebids his ♣ I will give up on 3NT and look for a ♣ slam.

Rainer Herrmann

[jogs]

nigel_k, on 2011-August-07, 14:28, said:

I'll bid 2♦ and 3NT next time. If partner wants to play in clubs after that I have a pretty good hand for him.

Second bidding 2♦ first. With luck opener with Kx of diamonds can rebid 2NT. 3NT from partner's side should play better. May gain a trick. May gain only tempo. You want RHO with AJTxx of diamonds on lead. Don't want LHO with xx of diamonds to lead a diamond through partner's Kx.
2♦ may also lead to a club slam.

[JLOGIC]

rhm, on 2011-August-13, 13:29, said:

Why is this absurd? Are you afraid that 1♦ will become the final contract?

Certainly. Partner will not reopen with diamond length, and LHO is unlikely to bid given how few HCP he rates to have. If partner has 3 diamonds and passes out 1D even like 10 % of the time that seems like a pretty big disaster.

I don't agree that passing and cuebidding over a double will show a hand like this either, but I guess that is since I think passing when there is a non negligible chance of it getting passed out and being bad is impossible.

[P_Marlowe]

Usually you should go for your own contract.
Your holding in their suit is not good enough to have a reasonable
chance to beat their contract in a reasonable way - given your
strength, you know, that your side, will have game, so you would
need to beat 1D -2 / -3.
And the vulnerability in place does matter, if we are red and they are
green, you need to beat 1D -4 to get a better score than game our way,
how high is the the likelyhood, that they get only make 3 tricks?

With the given hand, I would simply bid 3NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[rhm]

JLOGIC, on 2011-August-13, 13:46, said:

Certainly. Partner will not reopen with diamond length, and LHO is unlikely to bid given how few HCP he rates to have. If partner has 3 diamonds and passes out 1D even like 10 % of the time that seems like a pretty big disaster.

I don't agree that passing and cuebidding over a double will show a hand like this either, but I guess that is since I think passing when there is a non negligible chance of it getting passed out and being bad is impossible.

A matter of philosophies.
Of course you pass with 3 cards in ♦, because your partner has to be broke under those conditions, because you require him to bid even when nothing fits.
I believe it is more important to show distribution than strength immediately. Strength can wait.
I would not let them play with 3 cards in ♦ and with 4 cards in ♦, opener would require 5 cards in ♣, at least the way I play, which would leave a lot of major cards unaccounted.
This is practically impossible.
It is pretty clear, whatever your philosophy, that letting them play 1♦ when you hold 3 cards there is much more likely to create an adverse part-score swing their way than that you will be in trouble bidding on.

Rainer Herrmann

[JLOGIC]

Quote

t is pretty clear, whatever your philosophy, that letting them play 1♦ when you hold 3 cards there is much more likely to create an adverse part-score swing their way than that you will be in trouble bidding on.

I don't really agree. I am passing 1D with 3 in order to hopefully win a partscore swing, not because I'm scared of going for a number. If I have 3 diamonds and partner couldn't bid over 1D and has some but not a lot of values, it is likely he has some diamond length. This means that the opponents have a better fit somewhere. It is easily possible that the opps have missed their best fit, and possibly a game in that suit. They will overcall 1D with shapes like 2452 etc rather than double, and their partner might not have had enough to respond. I would rather let them rot in their non-fit for partscore reasons, than give them another shot at it.

FWIW I think it is a pretty normal style to pass out 1D when you don't have diamond shortness (0-2) or extra values/shape. I am surprised anyone would balance over 1C 1D p p with a hand like KJx Qxx Kxx Axxx to be honest, I think doubling would be a very minority choice, perhaps I am mistaken though!

[rhm]

JLOGIC, on 2011-August-13, 15:53, said:

I don't really agree. I am passing 1D with 3 in order to hopefully win a partscore swing, not because I'm scared of going for a number. If I have 3 diamonds and partner couldn't bid over 1D and has some but not a lot of values, it is likely he has some diamond length. This means that the opponents have a better fit somewhere. It is easily possible that the opps have missed their best fit, and possibly a game in that suit. They will overcall 1D with shapes like 2452 etc rather than double, and their partner might not have had enough to respond. I would rather let them rot in their non-fit for partscore reasons, than give them another shot at it.

FWIW I think it is a pretty normal style to pass out 1D when you don't have diamond shortness (0-2) or extra values/shape. I am surprised anyone would balance over 1C 1D p p with a hand like KJx Qxx Kxx Axxx to be honest, I think doubling would be a very minority choice, perhaps I am mistaken though!

I do not disagree that you represent the mainstream American style, where partner has to find a bid after over-caller, even if nothing fits.
The trouble with this approach is that partner is frequently balanced and often responds in notrump (for want of anything better), when it would be far better if opener would play notrump and over-caller would have to lead and some hands are simply unbiddable with this approach.
For example change responder's hand slightly to ♠AQJ,♥AQx,♦xxxx,♣xxx and you have a hand for the BW MSC. That is also the major reason why some play that 1♠ after a 1♥ overcall denies ♠s.
And all this only because partner is not allowed to pass with values.
Consequently I do not subscribe to the concept that opener shows 18-19 if he balances with 1NT after having been over-called at the one-level followed by two passes.
With KJx Qxx Kxx Axxx I balance with 1NT (we alert) and have never come to cropper, but with a lot of good scores our way.
With 18-19 balanced opener either doubles and bids notrump next or jumps to 2NT (with a reasonable source of tricks).

Rainer Herrmann