[MarkDean]

I am rather amazed that people think a 3♦ rebid is an overbid. What does a typical 3♦ rebid look like for you?

Would you open and rebid 2♦ on Jx Jx KQxxxx Axx? It seems odd to me that rebidding 3♦ on an ace more, thereby solidifying the suit would be considered an overbid.

[fred]

MarkDean, on Apr 13 2009, 09:08 PM, said:

I am rather amazed that people think a 3♦ rebid is an overbid. What does a typical 3♦ rebid look like for you?

Would you open and rebid 2♦ on Jx Jx KQxxxx Axx? It seems odd to me that rebidding 3♦ on an ace more, thereby solidifying the suit would be considered an overbid.

Perhaps some that think 3D is an overbid would open 2D with the 11-count that you present. I admit that I am old-fashioned enough that I would do just that.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[rogerclee]

MarkDean, on Apr 13 2009, 11:50 AM, said:

1♦ for me - why is it that about half of the time Clee says a bid is terrible, I am making that bid?

I want to add that these are the reasons I think 1♦ is terrible:

1) It doesn't preempt the opponents as much, who can easily be on for 4M when my hand is this concentrated in diamonds. It is not unusual to play 1N= after opening 1N when the opponents are making 4M. It is also very frequent that the opponents can outcompete us in one of the majors if we open 1♦.

2) I think it's way more likely 1N makes than 3♦ if we are going to play this in a partial, though 2M may not make as often as 3♦ if partner has a transfer and pass sort of hand, I am not sure.

3) I think partner will bid 3N too often over 1♦, 3♦, but I am open to being proven wrong about this.

4) This hand is not very good for slam purposes anyway and the number of hands we can actually get to 5♦ when it's right after I open 1♦ is very small, the diamonds are not truly solid and being balanced is a huge liability. I think it's easy to overestimate the number of good slams we miss by opening 1NT.

[jdonn]

To me this is an absolutely textbook example of the sort of hand that if you open 1♦ is between a 2♦ and 3♦ rebid. That fact, and the Jx's which are good holdings with which to declare, make 1NT absolutely obvious to me.

[JLOL]

Mark,

It makes more sense to me to have an 11-15 range for 2 and a 16-17 range for 3 than an 11-14 range for 2 and a 15-17 range for 3.

Add to this that:

1) I don't think this is a good 15, Jx Jx offsets the good, and we only have 6 diamonds rather than 7.

2) Not all hands with 11 would be opened with 1D.

3) Some 18 counts are in range for a 3D rebid.

The fact that it's debatable whether to rebid 2 or 3 (I would not have, though you probably would not have, for the opposite reason) is a good argument for opening 1N.

[JLOL]

Jdonn,

You are just used to playing with GIB so you always hog the dummy

[Gerben42]

1♦ then 3♦. After all I have 7 tricks. Partner must have the major suit stoppers for 3NT and I want him to play it in that case. 1NT wrongsides it.

[655321]

Gerben42, on Apr 14 2009, 03:52 AM, said:

Partner must have the major suit stoppers for 3NT and I want him to play it in that case. 1NT wrongsides it.

What major suit holdings for partner make a lead through Jx better than a lead around to Jx?

[gnasher]

655321, on Apr 14 2009, 10:20 AM, said:

What major suit holdings for partner make a lead through Jx better than a lead around to Jx?

A10x
AQ
AQ10
Kx
Q9xx
108xx (in practice, eg AQ9x sitting over the 10)

That's not intended as a complete list.

[skjaeran]

I'd open 1NT with this.

Agree with a few others that 1♦...3♦ is a huge overbid. So opening 1♦ would force me to rebid 2♦. Because of that (and that only), I prefer 1NT.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Apr 14 2009, 04:28 AM, said:

655321, on Apr 14 2009, 10:20 AM, said:

What major suit holdings for partner make a lead through Jx better than a lead around to Jx?

A10x
AQ
AQ10
Kx
Q9xx
108xx (in practice, eg AQ9x sitting over the 10)

That's not intended as a complete list.

SPANK!!! lol