[mgoetze]

---

I hope noone considers this a 1♦ overcall?

Anyway, your bid now?

[Mbodell]

2♦ - partner knows it is red at IMPs, I don't expect this to remotely end the auction. If we belong in 3nt we should still be able to get there without me blasting it right now.

[cherdano]

 Mbodell, on 2015-January-12, 01:27, said:

2♦ - partner knows it is red at IMPs, I don't expect this to remotely end the auction.

I sure hope it doesn't end the auction, as it is forcing.

[whereagles]

3♦. Can't get more descriptive than this.

[MrAce]

 mgoetze, on 2015-January-12, 00:06, said:

---

I hope noone considers this a 1♦ overcall?

Anyway, your bid now?

3♦ is better than 2♦ imo

[fourdad]

As pds 1S is a free bid, and I have stops in all the other suits, I bid game. 3NT

[MrAce]

 fourdad, on 2015-January-12, 05:42, said:

As pds 1S is a free bid, and I have stops in all the other suits, I bid game. 3NT

Actually I like this better than my 3♦, as long as pd doesn't take it as some sort of gigantic balanced.

[Trump Echo]

 whereagles, on 2015-January-12, 04:06, said:

3♦. Can't get more descriptive than this.

Yes.

[keithhus]

Initially, I would have bid 3NT but having read comments, I can see 3D as being "more descriptive" and keeping bidding open. Interesting.

[nige1]

 mgoetze, on 2015-January-12, 00:06, said:

I hope noone considers this a 1♦ overcall?

Anyway, your bid now?

---

IMO

• Over (1♣) ??: 1♦ = 10, 3N = 9, Double = 8.
• Now ??: 3N = 10, 3♦ = 9, 2♦ = 6. A possible drawback to 3♦ is that it makes it harder to reach 3N.

[dave_beer]

 mgoetze, on 2015-January-12, 00:06, said:

---

I hope noone considers this a 1♦ overcall?

Anyway, your bid now?

I think it is very close to a 1♦ overcall and would do that if partner was not a passed hand. Once partner passes he is a lot less likely to have a hand that is going to bid 4♠ when I make a takeout double although he could still have one.

Having doubled I like 3NT.

3♦ describes my hand but may force partner to raise ♦ when we belong in 3NT. He may be able to hedge with 3♥ but may have a hand that can't do that. I think 3♦ is forcing since I have shown an old-fashioned strong jump overcall and partner is supposed to have a little somethng for 1♠.

I don't like 2♦ because it doesn't show a suit that is this good.

[mgoetze]

 cherdano, on 2015-January-12, 03:55, said:

I sure hope it doesn't end the auction, as it is forcing.

I think that's standard, but is it the best way to play? 2♦ could also be used to show something like a 3451 hand with extras (around 15 points).

[cherdano]

 mgoetze, on 2015-January-12, 12:57, said:

I think that's standard, but is it the best way to play? 2♦ could also be used to show something like a 3451 hand with extras (around 15 points).

If I wanted to bid again with that shape, I would double.

[dave_beer]

 mgoetze, on 2015-January-12, 12:57, said:

I think that's standard, but is it the best way to play? 2♦ could also be used to show something like a 3451 hand with extras (around 15 points).

I think that 2♦ is also forcing but shows a different hand than 3♦. Even if it isn't forcing partner bid only 1♠ and you are inviting game opposite a maximum or a hand improved by ♦ fit.

[cherdano]

I don't understand bidding 3♦. With which of the following three statements to the 3♦ bidders disagree?

• If I double-and-bid-a-suit, I want partner to raise me with a fit.
  
• If I bid 3♦ and partner raises, I can no longer play 3NT.
  
• With my actual hand, I probably want to play 3NT.

Is partner supposed to figure out that 3♦ shows stoppers in the opponent suits, and bid 3NT over 3♦ with a fit?

In any case, to me 3♦ shows a more distributional hand.

[MrAce]

 cherdano, on 2015-January-12, 14:07, said:

I don't understand bidding 3♦. With which of the following three statements to the 3♦ bidders disagree?

• If I double-and-bid-a-suit, I want partner to raise me with a fit.
• If I bid 3♦ and partner raises, I can no longer play 3NT.
• With my actual hand, I probably want to play 3NT.

Is partner supposed to figure out that 3♦ shows stoppers in the opponent suits, and bid 3NT over 3♦ with a fit?

In any case, to me 3♦ shows a more distributional hand.

This is why I retreated from my 3♦ and decided to bid 3 NT as fourdad suggested.

EDIT: By the way, 2♦ being forcing or not pretty much depends on what 1♠ free bid means to you. To me, when doubler implied a suit and I fail to bid it at 1 level, I am either very broke and balanced, or I do not have that suit. i.e QTxxx x xx xxxxx is enough for me to bid 1♠. I have seen so many times the train has long gone if I fail to bid it now, when pd is likely to be short in clubs.

[kontoleon]

i just need more information. Imb, macthpoint, total point, what?

and the vulnerable , non vulnerable?

I just thing that this hand have less than 50% change to win game.

First the 1D promise at least 5 diamons, so is possible j 9 in East. so i cant count 9 tricks in nt. i count only 6,5...

Maybe i am ultra wrong now(but from me 3nt here i beter end than 3d)

[mgoetze]

 kontoleon, on 2015-January-12, 16:09, said:

i just need more information. Imb, macthpoint, total point, what?

and the vulnerable , non vulnerable?

I just thing that this hand have less than 50% change to win game.

First the 1D promise at least 5 diamons, so is possible j 9 in East. so i cant count 9 tricks in nt. i count only 6,5...

Maybe i am ultra wrong now(but from me 3nt here i beter end than 3d)

It's a 28 board team match, IMPs. As always on board 18, NS are vulnerable and EW are not - you can also see this by the fact the E and W have a white background in the bidding diagram, while N and S have a red background.

1♦ showed 4+ hearts (click on bids with a yellow background for explanation).

[SHYIGAL1]

i really don't understand why a simple jump to 3nt is not the verdict here by everyone. pd has something in his 1sp bid.... opp will not lead sp here probably.
u have a stopper in cl and the lead will be in cl 99% of time. than u take ur 9 tricks on top. if u can't take ur 9 tricks on top... u write " SORRY PD", and go to the next board.

[foobar]

Agree with actions so far -- IMO, 3N is best at this point.