[kfay]

Everyone knows the benefits of bidding 2♣ over the opponent's 1♦, but how low is too low?

I held this hand last night. Granted, I was in a strange mood but I wasn't sure what to do. You've agreed to play this bid aggressively with your partner.

Scoring: IMP

P-(1♦)-?

---

Paranoia set in about the opps getting to NT and partner not leading clubs, etc. You don't play raptor, obviously.

Even for an 'aggressive' style, is this too little? They'll have a hard time punishing you at least in 2♣.

[Apollo81]

I'd do it even without the ♠Q. The ♣10 is quite an important card here.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

2C is ok, I am not sure, I would do it without the Queen of Spade,
but the call gets even better, if I had a low spade instead of the Queen.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[rbforster]

Bidding (1♦)-2♣ aggressively

Some other examples and specific hand discussion -

example 1    96 T7 A95 KQ6532
example 2    A9x JT Q8x KQT86

[OleBerg]

3♣, wtp?

[andy_h]

Apollo81, on May 1 2009, 01:13 AM, said:

I'd do it even without the ♠Q. The ♣10 is quite an important card here.

agree

[MarkDean]

I would not, but expect to be in the minority there.

[jdonn]

3♣ not vul, 2♣ vul.

[hanp]

Absolutely bid.

[peachy]

I agree that in P (1D) 2C, the call can be made with less than the usual two level overcall qualifications, if the suit is good. I don't consider it aggressive. It takes away oodles of bidding space, directs lead, makes negative doubles hard to make and hard to read, etc. I might consider 3C if favorable.

[Echognome]

Would tend to always overcall when the suit is good.

[Phil]

3♣ NV. I will pass at vul.

We don't have a game opposite a passed partner and a club lead with 6 may not be critical.

[JLOL]

red/white if my partner is wondering who has what I think he'll assume I have it. I'd pass at this vul and bid at at any other (bid 3 if w/r).

[mtvesuvius]

3♣ NV for me, and I think 2♣ at everything but R/W, then I think I may reluctantly pass.

[jdonn]

I'm just summarizing the answers so far, for convenience. At R/W, R/R, W/W, W/R, we so far have (I think):

apollo81, andyh, echognome: 2♣. 2♣. 2♣. 2♣
oleberg: 3♣, 3♣, 3♣, 3♣ (with a wtp!)
markdean: P, P, P, P
jdonn: 2♣, 2♣, 3♣, 3♣
peachy: 2♣, 2♣, 2♣, 3♣
phil: P, P, 3♣, 3♣
jlol:P, 2♣, 2♣, 3♣
mtvesuvius: P, 2♣, 3♣, 3♣
p_marlowe, robf, hanp: I can't tell.

There, now everyone can just say "agree with ___".

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Apr 30 2009, 04:51 PM, said:

I'm just summarizing the answers so far, for convenience. At R/W, R/R, W/W, W/R, we so far have (I think):

apollo81, andyh, echognome: 2♣. 2♣. 2♣. 2♣
oleberg: 3♣, 3♣, 3♣, 3♣ (with a wtp!)
markdean: P, P, P, P
jdonn: 2♣, 2♣, 3♣, 3♣
peachy: 2♣, 2♣, 2♣, 3♣
phil: P, P, 3♣, 3♣
jlol:P, 2♣, 2♣, 3♣
mtvesuvius: P, 2♣, 3♣, 3♣
p_marlowe, robf, hanp: I can't tell.

There, now everyone can just say "agree with ___".

At the time I replied, the discussion about what to do at vulnerabilities other than unfavorable hadn't been started. I'd bid 3♣ if NV.

[MarkDean]

jdonn, on Apr 30 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

I'm just summarizing the answers so far, for convenience. At R/W, R/R, W/W, W/R, we so far have (I think):

apollo81, andyh, echognome: 2♣. 2♣. 2♣. 2♣
oleberg: 3♣, 3♣, 3♣, 3♣ (with a wtp!)
markdean: P, P, P, P
jdonn: 2♣, 2♣, 3♣, 3♣
peachy: 2♣, 2♣, 2♣, 3♣
phil: P, P, 3♣, 3♣
jlol:P, 2♣, 2♣, 3♣
mtvesuvius: P, 2♣, 3♣, 3♣
p_marlowe, robf, hanp: I can't tell.

There, now everyone can just say "agree with ___".

I would bid 3♣ NV, was just answering the problem as given.

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Apr 30 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

I'm just summarizing the answers so far, for convenience. At R/W, R/R, W/W, W/R, we so far have (I think):

apollo81, andyh, echognome: 2♣. 2♣. 2♣. 2♣
oleberg: 3♣, 3♣, 3♣, 3♣ (with a wtp!)
markdean: P, P, P, P
jdonn: 2♣, 2♣, 3♣, 3♣
peachy: 2♣, 2♣, 2♣, 3♣
phil: P, P, 3♣, 3♣
jlol:P, 2♣, 2♣, 3♣
mtvesuvius: P, 2♣, 3♣, 3♣
p_marlowe, robf, hanp: I can't tell.

There, now everyone can just say "agree with ___".

Agree with andyh (until he changes his answer).

[rbforster]

MarkDean, on Apr 30 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 30 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

I'm just summarizing the answers so far, for convenience. At R/W, R/R, W/W, W/R, we so far have (I think):

apollo81, andyh, echognome: 2♣. 2♣. 2♣. 2♣
oleberg: 3♣, 3♣, 3♣, 3♣ (with a wtp!)
markdean: P, P, P, P
jdonn: 2♣, 2♣, 3♣, 3♣
peachy: 2♣, 2♣, 2♣, 3♣
phil: P, P, 3♣, 3♣
jlol:P, 2♣, 2♣, 3♣
mtvesuvius: P, 2♣, 3♣, 3♣
p_marlowe, robf, hanp: I can't tell.

There, now everyone can just say "agree with ___".

I agree with Josh's summary

I'm a 2♣ bidder, but I have a generally obstructive view of competitive auctions and my partnerships open light so there's less risk of getting hanged by partner later. In my preferred methods (Overcall Structure) I wouldn't have 3♣ available anyway, so perhaps this influences me to make non-jump overcalls a little lighter than usual with good long suits. (Although in OS, 2♦ is available to show ♣+♥, typically 4=5+, I think I'd treat this hand as just clubs)

[Fluffy]

OleBerg, on Apr 30 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

3♣, wtp?

You can add me here for your stats josh. I might be influenced by the fact that I play very sound 2/1 overcalls, but this really seems like a 3♣ wtp hand (not wtp at unfavourable actually, but still my option).