[david_c]

Scoring: IMP

---

You open 1♦ (4+), and the auction continues - (2♣) - 2♦ - (3♣) back to you.

Your call?

[Gerben42]

I guess I'd just bid 3♦ so overcaller cannot ask for a stopper below 3NT. If overcaller bids 3NT, I'll bid 4♦. If they go for 4♣ I will just leave it at that.

[rogerclee]

4♦

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Given the junk I usually have, if I raise partner
in this kind of situation, 3D is enough, but I am
not sure, I can sell out to 4C, although I really
believe this would be best, ... but I am not sure
I can do it.

If I cant bring myself to bid 3D, I bid 5D, 4D
should be forcing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[brianshark]

I'll say my bit with 3♦ and leave it at that. If they compete to 4♣ and partner doesn't bid over them, neither will I.

[Fluffy]

The law says 4♦! don't go against the law or you will go to jail!

[helene_t]

3♦ constructive or purely competitive? Since Justin say "wtp" I suppose the latter.

[jdonn]

3♦, they probably wont have game so anything else is just plain excessive. I would rather go to jail a 3♦ bidder than have to live as a free man for bidding a silly 4♦.

[Cascade]

3♦ competitive in diamonds.

I am curious to know what the 4♦ bidders think that shows. Ok I know that Fluffy thinks it is just a "law" bid.

I have no idea how partner is supposed to know what to do over that if your bid might be based on a weak (hcp) hand or a stronger (hcp) hand.

I would play 4♦ as a slammish distributional hand inviting a cue-bid.

[skjaeran]

3♦, wtp?
Selling out to 4♣.

[kgr]

3♦.
If opps bid to 4♣ then I pass.
If opps bid to 5♣ then I will probably bid 5♦ at these colors.
...How stupid is that?

[jtfanclub]

Partner gave me a freakin' two diamond bid in competition. Two diamonds! In competition! That bid requires four diamonds and 13 cards, +/- 1.

The LAW says keep bidding. And I have a corollary to that law, which says....

-If you have a massive fit, and you dont have the points to go on, then they also have a massive or double fit, and they do have the points to go on.

At that rule says: pass. Three diamonds...

-Isn't going to make.
-Is going to tell them about their fit.
-Is going to make it easier for them to find game.

Let's say overcaller has, oh...

AJ
AJx
xxx
KJTxx

Some people wouldn't consider it worth a 2♣ overcall. Clear pass of partner's 3♣ bid.

And yet...if you bid 3♦, a lot of good thing can happen for them. You've guaranteed diamond shortness in his partner's hand, so those diamonds don't look quite so rotten any more. Some people would now find another bid over 3♦. A lot of people would pass now but bid 5♣ if their partner bid 4, something that can't happen if you pass 3 clubs.

If you pass 3 clubs, that's where I expect them to play it. With my one trick pile of garbage, that sounds good to me. 3♦ is probably -100, 3 or 4 clubs is probably -150, who cares? Make the call that's the least likely to be -600.

Yeah, I know, not a popular call.

[cherdano]

I don't think the 2♦ bid precludes partner from having values, not even in clubs. If they get pushed into a game they wouldn't otherwise bid, who says they are going to make with the bad trump split?

[inquiry]

3♦'s... that is enough

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Feb 18 2008, 06:50 PM, said:

Three diamonds...

-Isn't going to make.
-Is going to tell them about their fit.
-Is going to make it easier for them to find game.

- And why the heck not?
- Call me crazy, but they already found it!
- Yes much easier when they no longer have a 3♦ bid. And why should they have game anyway, we have an opener and partner has enough to raise, we could easily even own the hand.

[Impact]

Given your ownership of the majorQ, any card(s) partner has except DQJ must be potential defensive trick(s).

OTOH you obviously have too many top controls missing to make game in D a decent proposition.

3D must have reasonable prospects and you don't want to give them the option of getting to 3NT if it is on....

3D wtp let them have 4C but if partner (!!) were to bid 4D I would have a lot of difficulty working out his hand ...

regards

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Feb 18 2008, 11:13 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Feb 18 2008, 06:50 PM, said:

Three diamonds...

-Isn't going to make.
-Is going to tell them about their fit.
-Is going to make it easier for them to find game.

- And why the heck not?
- Call me crazy, but they already found it!
- Yes much easier when they no longer have a 3♦ bid. And why should they have game anyway, we have an opener and partner has enough to raise, we could easily even own the hand.

Why?

Because I think partner has 5-9 hcp. And I think that two of those hcp are likely to be the queen of diamonds, and that (depending on the jack of diamonds) would make it 2-7 hcp outside of diamonds. Unless one of those clubs is an ace and they lead a minor suit, I think it's likely that any club honors will be useless on offense- it's not like I can lead to them. It also makes me nervous that partner didn't double: either he doesn't have a 4 card major, or he was too weak to make a call.

If he has a hand like xxx xx QJxx Kxxx, which I consider typical, we're down 1. Of course, they're likely to make 5♣, so it's not like 3♦ is a horrible place to be. On the other hand, he could have Kxx xx QJxx Kxxx, which would be a max, but then they bid 4♣ and make it, so what have we accomplished?

They know they have a fit, but they don't know how large a fit it is. They certainly don't know that three small diamonds is not two or three losers. I hope you're not arguing that 3♦ doesn't convey any useful information to them.

Normally, opener vs. raise, I wouldn't be worried about a game. In this case, we have 10 or 11 diamonds and three controls, which I'm not so sure will be worth even one defensive trick. Outside of the diamond suit, well, we've got no sure tricks or controls and we're the opener. Maybe you have a different range for 2♦ there than I do, but the way I play it we cannot own the hand.

I think the hands where 4♣ goes down for them are...rather unlikely. Yes, partner might have JT987 of clubs and 8 points in the majors, but it's not something I'd like to gamble on. I also think it's unlikely that we'll buy the hand in 3♦. So I don't think the 3♦ passing 4♣ accomplishes a big deal, if they stop at 4♣.

I think they're much more likely to go to game if I bid 3♦. If you think the bad club split will keep them from making it, and you're bidding 3♦ to try to get them to bid game, well, I can certainly accept that. Maybe that's right.

But if you're thinking of 3♦ as a wtp bid without considering where the auction may go next, well, I beg that you reconsider. Yeah, I know you did, but that was a generic 'you' this time.

[gwnn]

So a typical hand has no help in the majors and club wastage. How did you come up with that?

[matmat]

gwnn, on Feb 19 2008, 01:35 AM, said:

So a typical hand has no help in the majors and club wastage. How did you come up with that?

magic