[paulg]

cardsharp, on Feb 18 2008, 09:27 PM, said:

For my BIL teaching sessions I often generate hands based on a theme and see how they cope.

But sometimes it turns into how well I can cope!

I typically generate 64 hands and then chose 12 that seem appropriate, but I do not examine the hands too closely. When this hand popped up I had most of the thoughts expressed in these posts but I am pleased to see that it is as unclear as I imagined.

I have not seen a debate-ending argument for either call. There are bad things that can happen to 1♦, specifically a 3♣ rebid that could make it difficult for partner to bid 3NT, but this will be rare. Finding a 5-3 fit might also be rare though. I would definitely like a better suit for 2♦.

However I'd probably bid 2♦ at the table, especially as we overcall fairly aggressively. Not with huge confidence that it was right though.

Paul

[whereagles]

Easy 2♦. If pard, who prolly has some hcps, couldn't bid a major over 1♦, he probably won't have 5 of them. So 2♦, showing an intermediate hand, is just about ideal.

[ochinko]

With the same strength and distribution I'd bid 2♦ if my majors were weaker, but as they both contain 2 high cards, I like 1♦ more. Double is not a consideration.