[andy_h]

Scoring: IMP

---

Playing 2/1, you have the constructive auction (partner is dealer) of:
1♦ - 1♠
2♣ - ?

I'm wondering what your style of 2♦ vs. 3♣ is here (when holding say, doubleton or Hx in opener's 1st suit and 4card support of 2nd suit) ? Is it usually down to the suit quality of the 2nd suit?

[gnasher]

No. It's purely a matter of strength. With 2=4 in the minors, you bid 3♣ whenever you have invitational values, pass when you have a bad hand, and give false preference when you're in between.

This hand isn't strong enough to bid 3♣, so you should bid 2♦.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

It is more a question about your opening style.
If I raise, it would be 3C.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

hum.. it is very tempting to bid 3♣ here!!! The major suit holdings are good, the ♦K is golden, we got good club support and if pard makes a delayed spade support, it's great.

The hints are all there. I think I'll take the push and bid 3♣ because pard can still have a good 17 count, opposite which there may be a game on, only reachable if I don't pass now.

[jdonn]

I think it's worth 3♣ instead of 2♦. And I also think passing is really really bad.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on May 25 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

I think it's worth 3♣ instead of 2♦. And I also think passing is really really bad.

I think it is worth 3 clubs, as well.....the problem is will partner think it is worth 3 clubs?

[kenrexford]

Let's be optimistic and assume an average decent hand for partner where 5♣ has play...

Maybe x-xx-AQxxx-AKxxx? (majors either way)

That takes a 2-2 club split. Partner could be better...

Maybe x-Ax-Axxxx-AKxxx?

With this hand, we may very well be talking overtricks. Best luck, and even on a heart lead we roll in 13 tricks. 2-2 clubs, 3-3 diamonds.

Too many good things can happen here, IMO, to pass.

The question is whether 2♦ or 3♣. I think 4-2 argues 3♣, but I'm not sure what the right bid is. The folks suggesting 3♣ so far seem rather reliable, usually, so I think I'm right to bid 3♣. (Not meaning to disparage anyone bidding 2♦, though.)

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on May 25 2008, 11:52 PM, said:

Maybe x-Ax-Axxxx-AKxxx?

Isn't that hand worth 3♣ over 2♦? The point of giving false preference is to give partner another chance on hands like that.

[Echognome]

gnasher, on May 25 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

No. It's purely a matter of strength. With 2=4 in the minors, you bid 3♣ whenever you have invitational values, pass when you have a bad hand, and give false preference when you're in between.

This hand isn't strong enough to bid 3♣, so you should bid 2♦.

I like this. I felt like I would bid 2♦ at the table, but couldn't put my finger on why.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on May 25 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

I think 3C is way too much, and pass is way too little. 2D seems just right to me. I mean what hands are you scared of that will miss game after 2D, because I can think of a ton that will bid over 3C when it's wrong.

Why can't you just be in a worse contract?

I admit I don't feel that strongly for 3♣ (just for not passing). It just seems like it still finds the games 2♦ finds, and trades getting too high sometimes with getting to the better suit other times.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

just one comment:

Peoble seem to think, that 2D is stronger than Pass, it is not,
2D is just a mere preference.
What would you bid with 5-5 in the mayors and 2D and 1C?

The only advantage of 2D is, that it keeps the bidding open
which may allow opener to bid 2S response.
The probability for a 2S response rises / falls with openers
tendency to raise direct with 3 card support.

The downside is, that 2D may well go down while 2C makes,
the probability that we will play a 4-2 fit is low (I would assume
that partner bids 1NT with 4441), but maybe your partner
is a modern theorist, who opens 1D in case he happens to hold
5 clubs and 4 diamonds.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

Marlowe, nobody said 2D shows more than pass.

Josh, partner will act over 3C with mild extras and you will often go down in game. Partner will only act over 2D with substantial extras. I think gnasher answered the question in the first response and thought that would be the end of it.

[gwnn]

P_Marlowe, on May 26 2008, 08:05 AM, said:

modern theorist, who opens 1D in case he happens to hold
5 clubs and 4 diamonds

!!

[kenrexford]

A couple of additional observations...

First, this problem is solved rather well with a pet idea, a 2♦ opening as intermediate minors (about 13+ to 16; about 5L).

Second, I echo the concern raised by jdonn. 2♦ will get passed a lot for a set when 3♣ makes. When 3♣ is raised, will 4♣ fail? Will 4♣ fail more than 2♦?

[andy_h]

Thanks. Coming from an area where pretty much everyone plays new suit is forcing in auctions like 1D-1M-2C, 1C-1H-1S, 1H-1S-2C etc I'm now trying to get around that with the 'NF' style. In those days, we'd have bite our tongues to bid 3C with like a weak hand and 4153/5134 after an auction of 1H-1S-2C- or make a false preference back to opener's suit.

So back onto this hand, is the raise of opener's 2nd suit always an invitational style kind of hand that looks like a 10-11? Or is it the kind of hand that has like a good 8ish count or something that will interest opener if he has those invitiational 15/6/7 hands? What if the hand was something like ♠A8765 ♥xxx ♦x ♣KT98 or ♠KT9xx ♥xxx ♦x ♣KQTx ?

[P_Marlowe]

han, on May 26 2008, 01:10 AM, said:

Marlowe, nobody said 2D shows more than pass.

<snip>

Hi Han,

maybe just semantics, but
gnasher: you bid 3♣ whenever you have invitational values, pass when
you have a bad hand, and give false preference when you're in between

reading false preference as 2D, could be read the way I thought,
but as I said, it may just be semantics.
And there are other comments, which could be read in a similar way.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gnasher]

P_Marlowe, on May 26 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

gnasher:  you bid 3♣ whenever you have invitational values, pass when
you have a bad hand, and give false preference when you're in between

reading false preference as 2D, could be read the way I thought,
but as I said, it may just be semantics.

Yes, by "false preference" I meant 2♦.

I think the the upper and lower limits for pass and 2♦ are about the same, but 2♦ includes more good hands. With 1-3 or 3-1 in the minors, the lower limit is the same. Likewise with 1-4 or 4-1. The difference is that with 2-4 (or possibly 2-3) and a bad hand you pass 2♣, but with a reasonable hand you bid 2♦.

All of this assumes that 1D-1M-2C shows five diamonds and four clubs. I've no idea how it works if opener might be 4-5, which is a style that I don't understand at all.

[skjaeran]

Easy 2♦. I haven't got enough for 3♣ IMO.

Might be the wrong contract if partner passes this, but I'm very comfortable if partner can bid one more time - especially 2♠ is a bid I'd like to hear.

[Little Kid]

2♦