[cherdano]

The problem with 2♦ is that partner passes on many hands where he would make a game try over 2♠ (at least when we are not playing a style where any balanced hand with 3-card support raises).

Oh I just read Mike's last sentence I do think a passout over 2♦ is not unlikely (it is still a risk over 2♠ but slightly less likely).

[jdonn]

I don't understand making the argument that where we belong is a matter of how well the hands mesh, then rebidding a bad minor suit instead of supporting partner.

I also think it's worth considering, since you bring up the discussion of what the third bid might be, that after three bids partner will have a much better picture of your hand if your auction is something like diamonds, raise spades, bid hearts than if your auction is diamonds, diamonds, support spades.

And sorry I have to disagree on what you think is the likelihood of partner passing 2♦ when there is game in spades. Your "rarely" is my "commonly".

[Yogeshdg]

han, on Feb 20 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

I do, I think 2D is terrible.

I will bid 2♦ which looks normal. The hand looks slightly better for 2♠ rebid.
By the way why is 2♦ terrible ? It will only backfire if pd cant make a 2nd bid and he is short in ♦ since you both might fare well in 2 ♠.

My 2♦ promises 11-16 and my partner will bid again with 9 hcp so there is no question of missing any game since he will use a relay bid to find about more about my hand.

[gwnn]

Yogeshdg, on Feb 21 2008, 04:30 AM, said:

han, on Feb 20 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

I do, I think 2D is terrible.

I will bid 2♦ which looks normal. The hand looks slightly better for 2♠ rebid.
By the way why is 2♦ terrible ? It will only backfire if pd cant make a 2nd bid and he is short in ♦ since you both might fare well in 2 ♠.

My 2♦ promises 11-16 and my partner will bid again with 9 hcp so there is no question of missing any game since he will use a relay bid to find about more about my hand.

xxxxxx
x
xxx
xxx

where are the hcp?
why is game so good?

[Yogeshdg]

gwnn, on Feb 20 2008, 11:09 PM, said:

Yogeshdg, on Feb 21 2008, 04:30 AM, said:

han, on Feb 20 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

I do, I think 2D is terrible.

I will bid 2♦ which looks normal. The hand looks slightly better for 2♠ rebid.
By the way why is 2♦ terrible ? It will only backfire if pd cant make a 2nd bid and he is short in ♦ since you both might fare well in 2 ♠.

My 2♦ promises 11-16 and my partner will bid again with 9 hcp so there is no question of missing any game since he will use a relay bid to find about more about my hand.

xxxxxx
x
xxx
xxx

where are the hcp?
why is game so good?

what is he responding 1♠ for?

[gwnn]

the problem is you seem to imply every good game requires partner to hold at least 9 hcp. it's 6am and i havent slept much but the hand I gave you has zero (0) hcp and is a relatively good game in which you may or may not want to belong (and this is where i can't momentarily help you)

ergo

not every good game requires 9 or more high card point in pd's hand.

[mikeh]

My point about not missing game very often is that the opps haven't bid. Anyone can come up with a hand on which we make a game opposite a yarborough, but we won't miss that game by rebidding 2♦, because the hand CAN'T exist... the opps have 28 hcp and pass... nice bidding, guys. A 9 card heart fit and 28 hcp and they pass out 2♦! If that is the best argument against 2♦, then 2♦ is looking better all the time Of course, that isn't the best argument against it

Yes, 2♦ will miss some games but not many in the real world, while 2♠ is not always working out when partner has 4 weak spades and wasted clubs and bids again.

I am not criticizing 2♠, btw... I don't mind it at all, but I think the disdain for 2♦ is way off-base.

[Yogeshdg]

mikeh, on Feb 20 2008, 11:55 PM, said:

My point about not missing game very often is that the opps haven't bid. Anyone can come up with a hand on which we make a game opposite a yarborough, but we won't miss that game by rebidding 2♦, because the hand CAN'T exist... the opps have 28 hcp and pass... nice bidding, guys. A 9 card heart fit and 28 hcp and they pass out 2♦! If that is the best argument against 2♦, then 2♦ is looking better all the time Of course, that isn't the best argument against it

Yes, 2♦ will miss some games but not many in the real world, while 2♠ is not always working out when partner has 4 weak spades and wasted clubs and bids again.

I am not criticizing 2♠, btw... I don't mind it at all, but I think the disdain for 2♦ is way off-base.

Exactly. 2♠ and 2♦ both are acceptable to me. But i dont think any game will be missed by bidding 2♦.

[jdonn]

The point about the 0 hcp example is being misinterpreted. It's not "partner could have this hand so you should bid and not miss game if he has it." I think the person who invented it would even admit the opponents would always be bidding if partner had that. The point is more like "if partner can have a 0 count where game is ok, just think of how many hands he can have that will pass 2♦ where game is at least ok if not great." Just give him any number of somewhat similar 6, 7, 8, 9 counts and game is a cakewalk, so I still think the answer is many. If it's a partscore hand either bid could be better. If it's a game hand raising spades is to me clearly better.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Feb 21 2008, 12:09 AM, said:

If it's a partscore hand either bid could be better. If it's a game hand raising spades is to me clearly better.

If it's a slam hand (admittedly less frequent than a game hand, but usually more difficult to bid) 2♦ is far superior, in my view: very very tough to show a 6 card suit after 2♠ on a 3 card holding

[Fluffy]

han, on Feb 20 2008, 02:59 PM, said:

I do, I think 2D is terrible.

This post convincedme that 2♦ is the only choice

Raising with 3 cards is never an option! hehe.

[Edmunte1]

I'm not a big fan of raising with 3 cards when you hold a 6 card minor, just faking your hand type. Hand type should prevail usually: i have one suited hand in ♦'s with 3 card support in ♠ and partner should ask about ♠ fit if intrested.

But here's a special case: We have bad diamonds, and very good controls and shape for a suit contract, and bidding 2♦ may too frequently make us miss easy 4♠ games. So add me in 2♠ bidders camp