[Cyberyeti]

---

1♥-X-P-?

[broze]

I would always bid 2♦ and consider it obvious. Whether that view is normal, I don't know.

[MrAce]

1♠ for me. In fact i would not even consider anything else but i know i may be in minority on this.

[lalldonn]

I'm not smart enough to not bid 2♦.

[the hog]

1 would always bid 1S and i consider this obvious. I doubt you are in the minority MrAce. I think anything else is a joke.

[SteveMoe]

With MrAce and The Hog. 1♠ has the 1 level recommending it - strongly.

[ggwhiz]

1♠ here too but I need to watch the company I keep. Maybe hang in bars where it's 7 bucks a pint? Naaah....

[wyman]

I always bid 1S with this hand too. I'm not sure if my partners do that, nor am I sure that they are aware that I do that, though.

[zasanya]

2♦ for me . A question for those who always bid 1♠ with this or similar hands. Do you or your regular partner alert it?

[wank]

2♦

4>3 and when it's right to play 1♠ you always end up playing 3 or 4 possibly doubled.

[FrancesHinden]

If I could bid 1S and force partner to pass it, I would, but as I can't, I would bid 2D

[mike777]

fwiw does this really matter?


1s or 2d?

I mean is this an important point?

so far no one says so...

[twoshy]

The fact that we would bid a three card suit with 3433 does not mean we should look for opportunities to bid 1♠ on 3. Partner will raise spades more aggressively than he would raise diamonds. Even if this is only to the two level, you've lost the one advantage of 1♠ (playing a level lower), especially since the hands on which partner will raise 1♠ to 2♠ do not overlap with the hands on which partner will raise 2♦ to 3♦. What are the 1♠ bidders intending to rebid over partner's cuebid? I can't see a surefire way of avoiding landing in a 33 non-fit.

[Cyberyeti]

mike777, on 2012-October-20, 02:11, said:

fwiw does this really matter?


1s or 2d?

I mean is this an important point?

so far no one says so...

It matters a lot in this case:

Partner's hand is:

AKxx
x
KJxx
AKQx

3♦ is easy, 4♦ makes, even 2♠ is tricky (although I doubt you'll stop there) and partner misplayed spades and only made 6 tricks without any spectacularly bad breaks, both blacks 4-2, diamonds 3-2 Q onside.

I said everybody bid 2♦ on this, clearly I wasn't right on that, but I do think it's much the better bid.

[mike777]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-20, 03:47, said:

It matters a lot in this case:

Partner's hand is:

AKxx
x
KJxx
AKQx

3♦ is easy, 4♦ makes, even 2♠ is tricky (although I doubt you'll stop there) and partner misplayed spades and only made 6 tricks without any spectacularly bad breaks, both blacks 4-2, diamonds 3-2 Q onside.

I said everybody bid 2♦ on this, clearly I wasn't right on that, but I do think it's much the better bid.

yes it is clear to say everyone or other bids 2d is wrong but what is your point?

[Cyberyeti]

mike777, on 2012-October-20, 03:51, said:

yes it is clear to say everyone or other bids 2d is wrong but what is your point?

My point was that partner said 1♠ was normal, I said 2♦ was normal, was trying to find out what other people did.

I note that all the people I know to be Brits bid 2♦, interested to see a lot of votes from elsewhere for 1♠.

[MrAce]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-20, 03:47, said:

It matters a lot in this case:

Partner's hand is:

AKxx
x
KJxx
AKQx

3♦ is easy, 4♦ makes, even 2♠ is tricky (although I doubt you'll stop there) and partner misplayed spades and only made 6 tricks without any spectacularly bad breaks, both blacks 4-2, diamonds 3-2 Q onside.

I said everybody bid 2♦ on this, clearly I wasn't right on that, but I do think it's much the better bid.

Hold on a second, before you say jambo mambos please explain me things that doesn't add up.

What do you mean by 3-2 ♦ Q onside ? Qx onside ? Qxx onside ? AQx onside ? Because you are right we can't stop in 2♠ but no way you will stop in 3♦ either. And wtf is wrong with RHO ? Did he pass double with ♦A and 3-4 card ♥ support ? But regardless, of course we all wanna play in diamonds when pd holds that, i will not argue with you on that.

But as you said it matters only for this hand. Your pd is allowed to hold a shape like below. Even more he is allowed to hold less strength than 20 hcp. Where stakes will be between playing 2♠ and 3 ♦ and if you wanna simulate go for it, i bet 2♠ will come on top more often than 3♦. Just make sure simulation recognizes 1♥ doubler will have 4 card spades MUCH MORE often than he holds 4 or more diamonds. (Idk how you do that in simulation though, but at least it will know spades will play always 1 level lower than diamonds)

AKxx
xx
KJx
AKQx



Having said that, i don't think 2♦ is ridicilious, imo not even close to be ridicilious. It is actually the legit bid. You can't call ridicilious to the only legit bid even if you totally dislike it. Whether you are right or wrong doesnt matter either. Idk why Hog reacted the way he did but he sees things, especially the ones that he doesn't agree with, ridicilious most of the time.

I agree with Mike777, regardless of what you choose to bid over x, it is not as important as you all make out of it. Again, i don't think bidding 2♦ is ridicilious and i don't think bidding 1♠ is insane and i don't think you should check yours or your pds sanity, at least not with this hand. You may even convince me that 2♦ is a better bid, you will not convince me that 1♠ is insane though. But yes, 2♦ is the normal bid if this is what you meant by sanity check.

[rhm]

MrAce, on 2012-October-20, 04:58, said:

Hold on a second, before you say jambo mambos please explain me things that doesn't add up.

What do you mean by 3-2 ♦ Q onside ? Qx onside ? Qxx onside ? AQx onside ? Because you are right we can't stop in 2♠ but no way you will stop in 3♦ either. And wtf is wrong with RHO ? Did he pass double with ♦A and 3-4 card ♥ support ? But regardless, of course we all wanna play in diamonds when pd holds that, i will not argue with you on that.

But as you said it matters only for this hand. Your pd is allowed to hold a shape like below. Even more he is allowed to hold less strength than 20 hcp. Where stakes will be between playing 2♠ and 3 ♦ and if you wanna simulate go for it, i bet 2♠ will come on top more often than 3♦. Just make sure simulation recognizes 1♥ doubler will have 4 card spades MUCH MORE often than he holds 4 or more diamonds. (Idk how you do that in simulation though, but at least it will know spades will play always 1 level lower than diamonds)

AKxx
xx
KJx
AKQx



Having said that, i don't think 2♦ is ridicilious, imo not even close to be ridicilious. It is actually the legit bid. You can't call ridicilious to the only legit bid even if you totally dislike it. Whether you are right or wrong doesnt matter either. Idk why Hog reacted the way he did but he sees things, especially the ones that he doesn't agree with, ridicilious most of the time.

I agree with Mike777, regardless of what you choose to bid over x, it is not as important as you all make out of it. Again, i don't think bidding 2♦ is ridicilious and i don't think bidding 1♠ is insane and i don't think you should check yours or your pds sanity, at least not with this hand. You may even convince me that 2♦ is a better bid, you will not convince me that 1♠ is insane though. But yes, 2♦ is the normal bid if this is what you meant by sanity check.

I beg to differ.
Bidding 1♠ is clearly asking for trouble.
It is true of course that partner is more likely to hold 4 cards in spades than diamonds.
But this is the reason you should avoid bidding a three card major in response to a takeout double, particularly if you are broke.
Of course if the bidding would likely stop in either 1♠ or 2♦, 1♠ would be a far safer choice than 2♦. 2♦ could be a disaster.
What you know is the bidding will not stop in 1♠ and you know you have no spade fit and you know you will get too high if you bid 1♠ and a final penalty double is looming just round the corner.
But partner does not know and partner will get much more excited, if he "knows" about a major suit fit than about a minor.
It is easy to claim that partner must reckon with such a hand. The truth is that partner can not cope with all hands you might have between this one and hands just short of a 2♠ response to the takeout double.
The takeout doubler will often want to raise spades particularly in competition with little extra values just to confirm he has 4 cards in spades.
This may be theoretically unsound, but if he doesn't you will get stolen blind far too often.
I rather bid 2♣ than 1♠.
What do you do if you respond 1♠ and partner next cue-bids 2♥?
1♠ here shows a lack of foresight.
After 2♦ and 2♥ by partner you can bid 2♠ and an intelligent partner should realize you are bidding a three card suit, probably out of desperation.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

rhm, on 2012-October-20, 07:00, said:

I beg to differ.
Bidding 1♠ is clearly asking for trouble.
It is true of course that partner is more likely to hold 4 cards in spades than diamonds.
But this is the reason you should avoid bidding a three card major in response to a takeout double, particularly if you are broke.
Of course if the bidding would likely stop in either 1♠ or 2♦, 1♠ would be a far safer choice than 2♦. 2♦ could be a disaster.
What you know is the bidding will not stop in 1♠ and you know you have no spade fit and you know you will get too high if you bid 1♠ and a final penalty double is looming just round the corner.
But partner does not know and partner will get much more excited, if he "knows" about a major suit fit than about a minor.
It is easy to claim that partner must reckon with such a hand. The truth is that partner can not cope with all hands you might have between this one and hands just short of a 2♠ response to the takeout double.
The takeout doubler will often want to raise spades particularly in competition with little extra values just to confirm he has 4 cards in spades.
This may be theoretically unsound, but if he doesn't you will get stolen blind far too often.
I rather bid 2♣ than 1♠.
What do you do if you respond 1♠ and partner next cue-bids 2♥?
1♠ here shows a lack of foresight.
After 2♦ and 2♥ by partner you can bid 2♠ and an intelligent partner should realize you are bidding a three card suit, probably out of desperation.

Rainer Herrmann

This basically says what I wanted to say, I think 1♠ is horrible.

To Mr Ace - I expect to make 3♦ most of the time barring really bad breaks. 1♥-X-P-2♦-P-2♥-P-2♠-P-3♦ would be my auction of choice.

In spades, I need no more than xxxx(x), xxx, x, xxxx(x) to make 4♠, so if the auction goes 1♥-X-P-1♠-2♥-2♠ I'll have another go and we'll be at the 3 level also.

The actual holding was AQ onside, but Qx does just as well and makes 10, Qxx/AQx you may still make 10 but 9 is more likely.

Also more likely if I'm 4234 with a 20 count is that I have Ax/Kx in hearts and can rebid 1N.

[Fluffy]

I know many people in my area for whom having 2 diamonds for a double is better than having only 3 spades. All of them are poor players in my opinion, but not because of this, they simply don't play very well overall.