[mr1303]

---

This can't be classed as a success really. 6D was cold and 3NT went 2 off on a club lead.

Open to improvements. 3D was a limit raise.

[MrAce]

mr1303, on 2015-August-15, 19:31, said:

---

This can't be classed as a success really. 6D was cold and 3NT went 2 off on a club lead.

Open to improvements. 3D was a limit raise.

6!D is not cold but of course much better than 3 NT. I don't know what would be 2♦ but I can see a lot of bad things happening when limit minor hands jump to 3. This is not major suit where you pass or play 4M. What it leads to most of the time will be 3 NT, with a very little info. I do not like it at all tbh (playing 3m as limit raise)

[mike777]

tough I guess south might try 3h over 3d and then 4s over 3s....difficult hand.


fwiw I play 2s, crisscross as limit raise but given OP tough hand, difficult.

North is not good enough for a 4c splinter over 1d.

[mr1303]

Sorry, when I said 6D was cold I meant it was cold on the layout of the cards.

[gnasher]

How about opening 1♣? You'd probably still get to 3NT, but the chance of a club lead would be a lot less.

[wanoff]

With one partner 2♦ is limit+. Now 2♥ asks for any shortage.

[BillPatch]

1♣ is systemic in BWS, which plays inverted minors without crisscross promising 4 card support. This finds any more minor suit slams on non-pancake hands, and at least 95% of the time pancake hands play better at NT above the partscore level opposite a hand with an ordinary distribution such as this dummy. As noted above, at least 1♣ may impede the club lead.

If your intermediate or intermediate+ raises in diamonds typically deliver 5 card support the 1♦ opener works better on average, particularly when not playing MPs, where the penalty for playing in the lower scoring minor is usually severe when both contracts make at the same level. Mike777's suggestions seem to work well for the 3 level limit raises. Similar bidding one level lower works with the intermediate+ single raise, and you can return to 3NT after investigating the other contracts which might be optimal at imps if responder were to have one more club,

[kenrexford]

Don't play 3D as a limit raise. Anything else is more complicated than justified, considering the alternative of not playing limit raises.

[gszes]

Many players hate inverted minors but the example hand shows how tough it can be to sensibly bid when play 1m3m as invitational (vs 1m2m as invitational +). I would definitely bid 3h with the south hand since clubs looks like a glaring weakness and the 3h bid at least gets the ball rolling toward a possible 3n and warns responder that you have a problem with nt (and it is not hearts). responder follows with 3s which should mean a club problem identical to yours. This is bad for nt but how to proceed sensibly from here is sketchy. You have a lot of extras but the combined potential of the partnership could still easily be the 4 level (depending on responders club length).

IMHO it is not a bad idea to try 4s asking responder to POC since slam looks highly unlikely opposite a limit raise. Responder should be more than happy to pass 4s with their Kxx and singleton club since they are near the bottom of their limit raise and their cards are not slam conducive.

[ggwhiz]

gnasher, on 2015-August-16, 02:57, said:

How about opening 1♣? You'd probably still get to 3NT, but the chance of a club lead would be a lot less.

My partnership specifically agrees to open 1♣ with this shape, even with a 4-card diamond suit. That way our 1♦ opener promises at least a bit of shape. Not perfect but works pretty well.