[skjaeran]

Pass is out for me, absolutely.
Either I'll raise to game or I'll invite, that's the issue. And that is very close IMO.

If I invite I think 3♦ is obvious. This shows 5-4 and a game invite only. I use 2NT as a conventional game try which can include slam tries. Thus partner can pass 3♦ if he deems that to be correct.

In my methods I know that partner has a real ♦ suit on this biddind, since we open 1♣ on all balanced hands. Then I'd just bid game.

Playing standard, where partner can be 4324, 2443, 3442 or 4432 in addition to unbalanced with 4-5, I'd just invite with 3♦.

[ochinko]

pbleighton, on Jul 20 2007, 09:29 PM, said:

Quote

Partner already declared his hand was minimal.

No, partner has decided that his hand isn't worth 3H. That leaves a pretty wide range.

Peter

That's exactly what I meant and what I find relevant here, minimal loserwise, not necessarily pointwise. There is no range. Partner has exactly 7 losers. He could have 8 but never 6 as with 6 his bid would be 3♥.

[Fluffy]

Do you think xx-AKxx-AKxx-xxx is a good hand for partner?

[ochinko]

Fluffy, on Jul 21 2007, 03:30 AM, said:

Do you think xx-AKxx-AKxx-xxx is a good hand for partner? 

No. I think it's a great hand for partner.

But still, this hand has already told its whole story, would be lunacy to accept an invitation. That's why it is so important for the holder of the other hand to be able to evaluate it properly.

[Fluffy]

I will surprise nobody when I say that on the given hand game was on a finese. Actually on a trump finese, wich worked. Diamonds could not be 4-1 to damage you because partner held only 3.