[gwnn]

Scoring: MP

---

Two passes to you.

If you would like to know, 3NT shows a gambling NT with some stops, i.e. partner will pass it with most hands.

[the hog]

1D
Close to 2C, but I doubt 1D will be passed out.

[Gerben42]

Quote

If you would like to know, 3NT shows a gambling NT with some stops, i.e. partner will pass it with most hands.

No, I don't want to know.

Funny how often the theme of a huge hand with a long minor and a 4-card major comes up. I guess I have to point out again that I play 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♥ showing this

Of course it will go 2♣ (annoying overcall) - something inconclusive (annoying raise). I'll just bid 4♦ then.

[whereagles]

1♦ if I am in a good mood and feel confident I can find out when pard has Ax Kxxx xx xxxx

5♦ otherwise.

[hanp]

1D.

[jdaming]

1♦ with my club / relative ♠ shortness this rates not to get passed out. Too many possible developments to consider here but I strongly suspect 5-6♦ is where we want to be, but I still want to keep ♥ in the picture.

[neilkaz]

1♦ not expecting this to be passed out and prepared to bid at a high level later.

Opening 3NT doesn't come close to occuring to me.

[Trumpace]

Is there anything wrong with bidding 2♣ on this? Anyone care to explain?

[kenrexford]

Trumpace, on Mar 24 2009, 01:36 PM, said:

Is there anything wrong with bidding 2♣ on this? Anyone care to explain?

2♣-P-2♦-P-
3♦-P-3♠-P-
???

The problem is that 4♥ now is really unfomfortable. Even if it shows this hand, sort of, it leaves no space for anything good to happen. This is a horrible sequence.

If 2♣-2♦-3♥ shows this type of hand, that is an improvement by an entire level of bidding. That tool helps for this hand.

[whereagles]

Trumpace, on Mar 24 2009, 06:36 PM, said:

Is there anything wrong with bidding 2♣ on this? Anyone care to explain?

2♣ is ok if you're willing to bury the heart suit.

[jdonn]

1♦, then reverse, then bid diamonds. Again I must be missing something, what does 2♣ even gain us?

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Mar 24 2009, 01:58 PM, said:

1♦, then reverse, then bid diamonds. Again I must be missing something, what does 2♣ even gain us?

You don't wet your pants waiting to see if someone bids, I guess.

[Edmunte1]

1♦+2♥+diamonds, i don't consider 2♣ as an serious option.

[mikeh]

Surely we've beaten this type of 2♣ suggestion to death enough times by now? I guess not, because we still get a small number of posters who love to open 2♣.

There are a host of reasons why one should not do so. These include, but are not necessarily limited to:

1. We can't even be sure we can beat any of at least two games the opps may be bidding.

2. We can get preempted before we show even one suit

3. Partner may have a decent hand with all his length and strength in the blacks, and propel us too far, expecting more than 16 hcp for a 2♣ opening.

4. Partner may double an oppostion contract, expecting a little more defence than we have... and we will then be guessing: does he have it beat, or is he counting on us for values?

And why on earth would anyone seriously consider there to be ANY risk that this hand might go 1♦ P P P?????

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Mar 24 2009, 11:06 PM, said:

Surely we've beaten this type of 2♣ suggestion to death enough times by now? I guess not, because we still get a small number of posters who love to open 2♣.

It was also beaten to death the main reason why there's a adavantage to opening hands like these 2♣: put a celling to 1-level openers.

[hanp]

I would happily open 2C with Ax AQJ10 AKQ10xx x, which has the same number of playing tricks. I happen to play the same gadget as Gerben so I hope to show 4-6 by bidding 3H next.

On the original hand I think it is clear to open 1D and I'm not worried at all about playing it there.

[jdonn]

hanp, on Mar 24 2009, 06:15 PM, said:

On the original hand I think it is clear to open 1D and I'm not worried at all about playing it there.

Not to mention game is not a certainty. If we have no coverage in a black suit and partner has xxx of hearts, we don't want to be in game.

[helene_t]

1♦ wtp. 3NT or 5♦ is ok as a joke. 2♣ is a bad joke.

[Codo]

mikeh, on Mar 25 2009, 08:06 AM, said:

Surely we've beaten this type of 2♣ suggestion to death enough times by now? I guess not, because we still get a small number of posters who love to open 2♣.

There are a host of reasons why one should not do so. These include, but are not necessarily limited to:

1. We can't even be sure we can beat any of at least two games the opps may be bidding.

2. We can get preempted before we show even one suit

3. Partner may have a decent hand with all his length and strength in the blacks, and propel us too far, expecting more than 16 hcp for a 2♣ opening.

4. Partner may double an oppostion contract, expecting a little more defence than we have... and we will then be guessing: does he have it beat, or is he counting on us for values?

And why on earth would anyone seriously consider there to be ANY risk that this hand might go 1♦ P P P?????

1. We need not to beat their contract, we bid our own. Our hand does not scram defence.

2. yes, and we can get preempted before we showed our playing strength when we open 1 Diamond.

3. He won't expect more then 10 tricks.

4. And if partner doubles, do you sit after say 1♦ 4 ♠ X pass?

5. The risk of 1 Diamond all pass is very very low, about 2 % maybe. But the risk of having troubles after 2 Club are not big either.

6. When you open 1 Diamond and get preempted, will pd bid slam after say:
1 ♦ 4 Spade X pass
4 NT pass 5 Club pass
5 Diamond

with AQxx,Kxx,x,xxxxx?

Or will he do so easier after
2 ♣ 4 ♠ X pass
5♦ pass?


Nothing is perfect, but to me this hand is strong enough for 2 Club. When they prerempt, I will sell my hand as one suiter, else I can show 4 hearts with long diamonds. Seems like a good describtion.

[skjaeran]

Codo, on Mar 25 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

mikeh, on Mar 25 2009, 08:06 AM, said:

Surely we've beaten this type of 2♣ suggestion to death enough times by now? I guess not, because we still get a small number of posters who love to open 2♣.

There are a host of reasons why one should not do so. These include, but are not necessarily limited to:

1. We can't even be sure we can beat any of at least two games the opps may be bidding.

2. We can get preempted before we show even one suit

3. Partner may have a decent hand with all his length and strength in the blacks, and propel us too far, expecting more than 16 hcp for a 2♣ opening.

4. Partner may double an oppostion contract, expecting a little more defence than we have... and we will then be guessing: does he have it beat, or is he counting on us for values?

And why on earth would anyone seriously consider there to be ANY risk that this hand might go 1♦ P P P?????

1. We need not to beat their contract, we bid our own. Our hand does not scram defence.

2. yes, and we can get preempted before we showed our playing strength when we open 1 Diamond.

3. He won't expect more then 10 tricks.

4. And if partner doubles, do you sit after say 1♦ 4 ♠ X pass?

5. The risk of 1 Diamond all pass is very very low, about 2 % maybe. But the risk of having troubles after 2 Club are not big either.

6. When you open 1 Diamond and get preempted, will pd bid slam after say:
1 ♦ 4 Spade X pass
4 NT pass 5 Club pass
5 Diamond

with AQxx,Kxx,x,xxxxx?

Or will he do so easier after
2 ♣ 4 ♠ X pass
5♦ pass?


Nothing is perfect, but to me this hand is strong enough for 2 Club. When they prerempt, I will sell my hand as one suiter, else I can show 4 hearts with long diamonds. Seems like a good describtion.

1. No. But although partner will expect more defence from a 2♣ opener, part of the time he'll have enough values in the blacks to beat them, while at the same time we're going down ourselves. After a 1♦ opening it's less of a guessing game on this regard.

2. Sure we can, but the risk of being preempted is much higher after a 2♣ opener - opps are much more inclined to preempt over 2♣ than over 1♦ - as there's far more to gain.

3. True, but he'll expect more than 1-2 tricks on defence, which it's not improbable that we'll provide.

4. No, I'll bid 4NT and correct 5♣ to 5♦, implying a strong red 2-suiter with longer diamonds.

5. The risk of having trouble after 2♣ is MUCH higher than the risk of 1♦ being passed out.

6. He won't double after 2♣ (4♠) with that hand, since double shows a bust. You're right, though, that he'll have an easier raise to slam over comparable auctions over a 2♣ opener than over a 1♦ opener. However, the odds are that you'll have more trouble describing your hand after a 2♣ opener.