[rduran1216]

---

Playing standard with a D- level partner. How should these hands be bid at these colors?

[matmat]

weren't we just having a forum appropriateness discussion a couple of days ago?

[Fluffy]

1♦-(ps)-2♣-(2♥)
ps-(ps)-3♣-all pass

North won't like it, but bidding 3♦ and both rounds would be GF

[gnasher]

1♦ pass 2♣ 2♥
3♦ pass pass pass

looks normal to me. If you play 3♦ as promising extras, you may have to work out how to deal with

1♦ pass 2♣ 2♥
pass 2♠ 3♣ 4♠

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2011-January-10, 03:08, said:

1♦ pass 2♣ 2♥
3♦ pass pass pass

looks normal to me. If you play 3♦ as promising extras, you may have to work out how to deal with

1♦ pass 2♣ 2♥
pass 2♠ 3♣ 4♠

Fair enough.
But then tell us how do you handle stronger hands? Say the same hand but with the ♠ace instead of the ♠5.
What do you do over 2♥? play a forcing Pass?
3♦ may not promise extras, but neither does it deny it in my opinion.
Given that East-West may well have game in the majors, North-South should not have done too badly, buying the contract in 4♦.

Rainer Herrmann

[nigel_k]

Surely they make at least three of a major anyway, or can you take four minor suit tricks plus a trump promotion if they play in spades?

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2011-January-10, 04:15, said:

Fair enough.
But then tell us how do you handle stronger hands? Say the same hand but with the ♠ace instead of the ♠5.
What do you do over 2♥? play a forcing Pass?

As in almost all competitive auctions, I accept a loss of accuracy on the good hands so that I can compete sensibly on the less good ones. With a good hand and diamond length I'd have to start with double, 3♥, or some number of notrumps.

As usual, a better answer is to play transfers from 2NT upwards.

[whereagles]

Wtp??? opps have like 3 or 4 of a major on and it seems like we kicked them out of the bidding, so I don't see where the problem is.

[Fluffy]

gnasher, on 2011-January-10, 04:20, said:

As in almost all competitive auctions, I accept a loss of accuracy on the good hands so that I can compete sensibly on the less good ones.

A 2/1 is almost GF the way I play, so I am more worried about the hands were we are really stronger than the hands were we both sides are about equal. But this might not be your 2♣/1♦ style

[han]

High on my partnership wishlist is to adopt a style that allows us to bid our good suits in competitive auctions.

[gnasher]

Fluffy, on 2011-January-10, 09:28, said:

A 2/1 is almost GF the way I play, so I am more worried about the hands were we are really stronger than the hands were we both sides are about equal. But this might not be your 2♣/1♦ style

I was trying to reply in the context of the original poster's style. I assume that "standard" meant "Standard American".

[Fluffy]

don't tell me you claim to know Standard American, you could tell me you knew who killed Kennedy and I would believe it sooner

[dake50]

We need to get some S-inhibitor AND H-inhibitor bid in!!!!

[gnasher]

Fluffy, on 2011-January-10, 13:56, said:

don't tell me you claim to know Standard American, you could tell me you knew who killed Kennedy and I would believe it sooner

But I do know who killed Kennedy.

[rduran1216]

gnasher, on 2011-January-10, 03:08, said:

1♦ pass 2♣ 2♥
3♦ pass pass pass

looks normal to me. If you play 3♦ as promising extras, you may have to work out how to deal with

1♦ pass 2♣ 2♥
pass 2♠ 3♣ 4♠

Your partner just reversed the previous hand with

Jx QJxx KJxxx Kx

Opponents are not top shelf.

Partner will gladly bid 2C with 7HCP and 5 clubs AQJxx

[mtvesuvius]

SO WHAT?!

This is an A/E forum, if partner is a total idiot and we have to mastermind everything, why on earth is this here?!?!!?!?!

[rduran1216]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-January-10, 21:47, said:

SO WHAT?!

This is an A/E forum, if partner is a total idiot and we have to mastermind everything, why on earth is this here?!?!!?!?!

ok change the question.

Is 3D here forward going or showing a hand like this one at these colors?

[mtvesuvius]

OK this is a much better question, and sorry about my above response, I was tilted a slight bit -- was down 51 IMPs in a short match. Anyway, I think 3♦ is competitive here since G/B 2N wouldn't apply. This creates a problem on the stronger hands, but I think overall playing it as competitive will be more practical. This is one of the problems with playing 1♦-2♣ as INV+ though, and is why I prefer to play 1♦-3♣ as an INV with clubs, and 2♣ as GF.