[bid_em_up]

East open 1♦.

Your bid?

---

Playing 2/1, RHO opens 1D, and its your call.

What call do you make and why?

[FrancesHinden]

Jlall, on Jan 2 2007, 04:33 PM, said:

2C. I have a good suit and a good hand. This seems like a non problem.

Quite.

Double implies support for the other three suits, which we don't have.
1NT implies a diamond stop, which we don't have (just give partner Ax or Kxx in diamonds and see which way up we'd like to play 3NT).

I've been known to pass with a 16-count and 3 cards in RHO's suit, but not with a 5-card suit to 100 honours.

[paulg]

With Sabine Auken and Andy Robson advocating weak 2♣ overcalls over 1♦, following their advice means that "a good suit and a good hand" is slightly dangerous: so I would consider Pass as well as 2♣.

p

[mikeh]

cardsharp, on Jan 2 2007, 12:05 PM, said:

With Sabine Auken and Andy Robson advocating weak 2♣ overcalls over 1♦, following their advice means that "a good suit and a good hand" is slightly dangerous: so I would consider Pass as well as 2♣.

p

I don't get it: I very , very much doubt that either advocate 2♣ as DENYING cards. I suspect they mean, perhaps to a slightly greater extent than 'standard', that one should stretch to bid 2♣ over 1♦: indeed I know few good players who would disagree.

Passing is the dangerous call: it goes 1M P 2M back to you...?

I go with the rest: 2♣. 1N is for masterminds, double is a (huge) distortion and lie to partner, and 2♣ is what's left... and is perfect..even tho I could well have a weaker hand... I could also have a stronger one.

[pclayton]

2♣ is fine, but I also realize that 2♣ over 1♦ rates to be the wide-ranging because of the preemptive value. I'm probably top of my range here.

I would also overcall 2♣ over 1♦ on a hand like: xxx, Axx, x, AJTxxx. But is this thinking antiquated? Is there really a hand where you would overcall over 1♦ but not say, 1♠?

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Jan 2 2007, 12:41 PM, said:

I would also overcall 2♣ over 1♦ on a hand like: xxx, Axx, x, AJTxxx. But is this thinking antiquated? Is there really a hand where you would overcall over 1♦ but not say, 1♠?

For me, the answer is a resounding 'Yes'

My answer is coloured by the fact that I usually play in a 5-card major environment, but even those in a 4 card world will encounter some of the same issues.

The reason that a 2♣ overcall can be stretched over 1♦ but not over 1Major is twofold.

The first, and least significant, is the availability of a raise for responder. Responder can comfortably raise with 3 card support if opener has promised 5.

Thus after 1♠ [2♣], with xxx Kxx KJxxx xx, I happily bid 2♠.

After 1♦ [2♣], with xx KJxxx Kxx xxx, I am not so happy. Should I bid 2♦? I would, in my methods, since I open 4=4=3=2 1♣, but if you are 'mainstream' you could be 4=4=3=2 and open 1♦. Yes, I know this hand is an advertisement for negative free bids, but (for a number of reasons) I won't play them.

The second reason is related: it is the meaning ascribed to, and thus the relative availability, of the negative double.

Most play that after 1Major [2minor], the negative double speaks only to the unbid major. There is only one suit in play via the double. However, most play that after 1♦ [2♣] the negative double either promises both majors or is based on a hand that can deal with active bidding by opener in an unheld major.

This severely constrains the availability of the negative double.

There will be far more 'problem' hands for responder after 1♦ [2♣] than after 1major [2♣].

Since the opps have opened the bidding 1♦, the chances that the hand belongs to us in game or slam are less than had RHO passed. Accordingly, we can afford, statistically, to weaken our constructive bidding (by having a broader range of strength for our 2♣ overcall) because, on the whole, the additional problems caused the opps by our style offset the loss caused to us.

But when the opps have opened 1 Major, a broader range style causes less disruption to the opps while conserving, for us, the costs in our constructive auctions.

[neilkaz]

Near top of my range for 2♣ with 16 HCP and a good suit, but I am allowed to have a the top of a reasonably wide ranging bid range. PD can raise or introduce a major or Q bid ♦. If PD raises, I can bid 3♦ asking for stopper help and we should have good chances a 3NT if he has a stopper.

That being said, I won't strongly criticize 1NT here with hopes that the minor is stopped since often PD can help and 1NT states my values in one bid. If the opening was a 5 card+ major, I certainly wouldn't gamble 1NT without a stopper.

Anyhow..slight pref. for 2♣ vs 1NT for me.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

call me old fashioned, but I need
a stopper for 1NT.
I wont pass, and I wont double,
... the later forces me to bid 2C
anyway, so 2C.

I can understand 1NT, but as I said,
I am oldfashioned.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

1NT. This shows a bal 15-17, which seems to be pretty much what I have.

[helene_t]

cardsharp, on Jan 2 2007, 07:05 PM, said:

With Sabine Auken and Andy Robson advocating weak 2♣ overcalls over 1♦, following their advice means that "a good suit and a good hand" is slightly dangerous: so I would consider Pass as well as 2♣.

Would Saine and Andy suggest that you pass because your hand is too good for an overcall? Sounds unlikely.

Dbl might be an option for some. Make it a queen stronger and I would probably double.

[Codo]

I would prefer to bid 1 NT now. I get the shape and the strength across in one bid.
I doubt that the missing full stopper is a real problem. Even if pd is 4423 and we don´t find our fit, diamonds can still be 4-4 or pd has a usefull Diamond in his ensemble.
I have no objections against 2 Club of course, this is surely at the upper range.

But I would be more afraid of missing 3 NT when pd decides to pass 2 Club with something like Axxx, Kxxx, Qx,xxx then being one or two off in NT.

All other calls are - as the poll suggests- nuts.

[kenrexford]

1NT for me, with a caveat.

First, 1♦-2♣, as mentioned, is extremely useful as a semi-preemptive action. If I have agreed to this, I hate to have a two-level overcall with a range from "in their face" to "serious about 3NT." If 2♣ should be sound by agreements, then 2♣ seems best, "sound" meaning "serious about 3NT."

Second, 1NT is most effective on these hands IF you have a method for resolving the "real stopper" or "points on the table" problem. When 1NT is allowed on this hand, by partnership understandings, then my personal preference is for systems on, except that some calls ask for stoppers. The simple one is that any "natural" diamond call from responder is really a cue asking for stopper quality. Any transfer into diamonds, or artificial call "showing" diamonds, operates the same way. E.g., imagine using 4-way transfers. If 2NT is "a transfer to diamonds," it NOW shows invitational values with the need for a real diamond stopper. Overcaller can then (1) pass -- minimum with a real stopper, (2) 3♣ (all right -- you caught me), (3) 3NT (real stopper, maximum, or (4) something else (maximum, no real stopper, descriptive).

This is easier with, say, 2325 pattern, same basic cards, white-on-red, after a 1♥ opening. Sure, I'd bid 1NT (in some partnerships), with the understanding that 2♦, normally a transfer, is a stopper re-check. In that scenario, 2♥ ("accepting" the transfer) shows a minimum without a stopper, maximizing scrambling space. The difference in the 1♦-2♣ arena is that, after 2NT (transfer/recheck), 3♣ makes sense as my escape because I almost assuredly have long clubs if I bid this way.

[Nickboss]

For me the form of scoring is of paramount importance:

at pairs i try 2♣ if i miss game... well its one board
at Imp it is imperative i rach game if it is there and 1NT is probably the best, if somewhat flawed way of reaching it.