[ArtK78]

You are playing in the first half of a 28 board match. The match seems about even when this hand comes up:

---

Assign the blame for failing to get to 3NT.

Sorry - had the hands backwards. Fixed now.

This post has been edited by ArtK78: 2011-July-14, 10:44

[jmcw]

100% you. the post makes no sense

[VM1973]

ArtK78, on 2011-July-14, 07:17, said:

You are playing in the first half of a 28 board match. The match seems about even when this hand comes up:

---

Assign the blame for failing to get to 3NT.

The hands must be reversed because the person with the singleton ♦ is unlikely to bid and rebid the diamonds and, if he did, his partner holding AKQ10xx of diamonds would certainly not pass it out at the 2 level.

I blame the long diamond holder. He should hit 1NT. He's looking at 6♦ and a club at the very least and he must realize that his partner has a fair amount of spades. Matchpoints, everyone red, that's at least +200 and should be a top unless you have game.

[Bbradley62]

Presuming that you've switched the East and West hands, was the majors-holder going to sit for a re-opening double?

[Bbradley62]

ArtK78, on 2011-July-14, 07:17, said:

You are playing in the first half of a 28 board match.

VM1973, on 2011-July-14, 08:04, said:

Matchpoints, everyone red, that's at least +200 and should be a top unless you have game.

Not matchpoints...

[gnasher]

I blame responder. Opener was very much under the gun when he bid 2♦, so he should have a pretty good hand.

[semeai]

This is tough. I can see how the long diamond hand perhaps should double instead of bidding 2♦, and VM's argument seems good at this vulnerability, but 2♦ isn't so bad given that some extras will be expected at this vulnerability. The hand with both majors and the nice 109 of hearts can consider making another move opposite a partner who bids 2♦ with both vulnerable, but the misfit suggests not doing so.

Bbradley62, on 2011-July-14, 08:06, said:

Presuming that you've switched the East and West hands, was the majors-holder going to sit for a re-opening double?

My guess is yes, but this doesn't seem relevant. There's a continuous spectrum of hands from weak to strong that will sit for a reopening double.

[Phil]

The positions are wrong in the diagram, but it isn't hard to see that east is west and west is east. If downvoting were available, JMCW would get one from me for their post, since it adds nothing to the discussion.

Both get blame.

2♦ even though we are vul, is sort of a 'nothing bid'. It implies a good suit, but I would not expect AKQTxx and a side AQx. This is an automatic double.

Pass of 2♦ is awful. This hand trapped and has to take a call over 2♦. While partner doesn't have to have this nice 16 and great diamonds, it could also have a better hand with lesser diamonds and the wrong shape to x.

Getting to 3N would be nice, however, but nailing these loose opponents for 800 or 1100 would be even better!

[VM1973]

What action do you recommend the trap passer take over 2♦?

[gnasher]

If the responder is going to bid opposite 2♦ (as I think he should), he should bid 2NT, showing a trap pass with invitational values.

I don't understand why so many people want opener to double 1NT. Is that even for penalties? Even if it is, the hand is about diamonds, not about penalties. If I doubled 1NT with this, I'd expect to hear 2♠-pass-pass to me, and then I'd be guessing what to do. Partner won't always have ♠AK108x.

[Phil]

gnasher, on 2011-July-14, 09:51, said:

If the responder is going to bid opposite 2♦ (as I think he should), he should bid 2NT, showing a trap pass with invitational values.

I don't understand why so many people want opener to double 1NT. Is that even for penalties? Even if it is, the hand is about diamonds, not about penalties. If I doubled 1NT with this, I'd expect to hear 2♠-pass-pass to me, and then I'd be guessing what to do. Partner won't always have ♠AK108x.

Double of 1N is takeout and I'm surprised you suggest otherwise. It just so happens we have a hand that doesn't mind defending 1N.

I wasn't so much thinking that partner has ♠AKT8x; I was more worried about partner holding the ♥A and ♣Kxxxxx. Or ♥Axxxx perhaps.

[JLOGIC]

I would bid the same way with both hands. The opps seem to have basically psyched vulnerable with no fit and they got me. It is possible to just ignore the opps but I think in general that is a poor strategy in these conditions.

[xxhong]

This red 2D should be very serious after north's 1NT bid which could be based on pretty good diamonds. Therefore, west really should bid more over 2D. Actually hands with one queen weaker shouldn't be bid over 1NT IMO. Of course, many don't play this sound style and tend to compete more with light hands, which may win them some partial swings and lose big when things don't go well.

ArtK78, on 2011-July-14, 07:17, said:

You are playing in the first half of a 28 board match. The match seems about even when this hand comes up:

---

Assign the blame for failing to get to 3NT.

[JLOGIC]

Are people really not going to bid 2D on most hands with 7 diamonds and short spades? x Kx KQ98xxx Kxx or something seems like a totally normal 2D bid to me.

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on 2011-July-14, 10:45, said:

Are people really not going to bid 2D on most hands with 7 diamonds and short spades? x Kx KQ98xxx Kxx or something seems like a totally normal 2D bid to me.

No, I don't think it's clear to bid with that - whilst we might be able to compete to 3♦ or push them into a non-making 3♥ or 3♠, I'd be worried about telling them how to play the game that they might be about to bid. I have an aceless 11-count with 1-2 in the majors, opposite a hand that couldn't respond to my opening bid.

Anyway, presumably you can't have anything less than that? If opener does have that hand, over 2NT he bids 3♦, which may make. If you make an invitational bid and find your partner with the worst possible hand, it's not such a surprise to find that you're too high.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-July-14, 11:14

[xxhong]

This one looks like a pass to me. Although you may make some diamonds, they may make a lot of S or H and they are more likely to hold more HCPs than your side, unless your partner holds a trapping pass hand, in that case he still might double and you can pull the double to 2D to show this hand.

JLOGIC, on 2011-July-14, 10:45, said:

Are people really not going to bid 2D on most hands with 7 diamonds and short spades? x Kx KQ98xxx Kxx or something seems like a totally normal 2D bid to me.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2011-July-14, 11:12, said:

Anyway, presumably you can't have anything less than that? If opener does have that hand, over 2NT he bids 3♦, which may make. If you make an invitational bid and find your partner with the worst possible hand, it's not such a surprise to find that you're too high.

I totally agree, I guess my point is that partner will be overwhelmingly likely to have one of those minimums based on the auction. We will often get a bad diamond split based on the auction. I don't want to invite if partner is almost always rejecting and we are then too high some of the time, the upside just isn't there to me.

On that note if partner thinks like me he will expect more for an invite and bid game too often/when it's wrong thinking you have more like 11 and/or a diamond filler or at least a doubleton. I don't like my hand at all for 3N with my stiff diamond. Of course this is circular, but I guess I can say the obvious that the range of inviting becomes wider and less accurate if you bid with this. Though perhaps you will bid 3N more than me over 2D also so your range will be the same.

[olegru]

I don't like 2♦ bid. Just can't see what I am going to achive with it. Pass looks lik underbid but gives us much better chanses.
If partner weak we don't have game and with this amount of fast tricks in ♦ defending 1NT give us a very good chanse to get plus. If partner strong and can dbl 1NT it will be even better.

[VM1973]

gnasher, on 2011-July-14, 09:51, said:

If the responder is going to bid opposite 2♦ (as I think he should), he should bid 2NT, showing a trap pass with invitational values.

I don't understand why so many people want opener to double 1NT. Is that even for penalties? Even if it is, the hand is about diamonds, not about penalties. If I doubled 1NT with this, I'd expect to hear 2♠-pass-pass to me, and then I'd be guessing what to do. Partner won't always have ♠AK108x.

I don't understand playing a system that lets opponents bid any crazy old thing where you could have them for -800 or -1100 and you just let them walk away.

If partner has trap passed then 2♠ will surely get hit. If partner hasn't trap passed, then he's broke.

I hate 2♦ with this hand. If you're going to bid, you have to bid at least 3♦.

[pooltuna]

Instead of 2♦ perhaps E can make a whatever X. Not sure if possible by standard agreements but perhaps W could have made a negative X over 1♠ and next bid 2NT to show a hand of about this strength but I don't blame him for passing and hoping for a protective X