[Lobowolf]

red vs. red, matchpoints. Unopposed bidding. Your rebid, after:

1♠ - 1NT (forcing);
??

♠AKQxxx
♥x
♦KJxx
♣xx

[jdonn]

2♦

[andy_h]

2D. Let's bid out our hand.

[Winstonm]

Jlall, on Aug 9 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

2D

Quote

Jlall Posted on Aug 9 2008, 10:27 PM
  I prefer 2S, in MP it would be a huge disaster to play in 2D when we have this as opposed to imps where it's not such a big deal. The potential gains of 2D are not worth the risk of playing there. 

If you are going to contradict and argue with yourself, have the decency to use a fake login name.

[the hog]

2D. Who says the auction will end here? Let me bid my hand and let partner in on the game as well.

[the hog]

Winstonm, on Aug 10 2008, 10:32 AM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 9 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

2D

Quote

Jlall Posted on Aug 9 2008, 10:27 PM
  I prefer 2S, in MP it would be a huge disaster to play in 2D when we have this as opposed to imps where it's not such a big deal. The potential gains of 2D are not worth the risk of playing there. 

If you are going to contradict and argue with yourself, have the decency to use a fake login name.

roflmao. I nominate this as the post of the year.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Jlall Posted on Aug 9 2008, 08:32 PM
  2D 

Quote

Jlall Posted on Aug 9 2008, 10:27 PM
  I prefer 2S, in MP it would be a huge disaster to play in 2D when we have this as opposed to imps where it's not such a big deal. The potential gains of 2D are not worth the risk of playing there

Quote

Jlall Posted on Aug 9 2008, 10:41 PM
  QUOTE (Jlall @ Aug 9 2008, 10:27 PM)
I prefer 2S, in MP it would be a huge disaster to play in 2D when we have this as opposed to imps where it's not such a big deal. The potential gains of 2D are not worth the risk of playing there. 


Agree regarding spades vs diamonds, but with this much playing strength you should bid 3S imo.

I agree with Jlall.
Me, too.
So do I.

[mike777]

Jlall, on Aug 9 2008, 10:45 PM, said:

A question to the 2D bidders, what is the plan over a 2S preference by pard? Pass or raise? What about if he bids 2H, will a 2S bid by you show extras (S, D, S)? What about if partner bids 3C. If you pass now that seems like a good case for bidding 2S directly since partner may have a hand that would pass 2S but bid 3C over 2D.

2d

over 2h will rebid 2s
over 2s will rebid 3s
over 3c will pass.

[Lobowolf]

I'm with the 2♦ bidders, mainly because I don't think any number of spades is correct. Given partner's tendency to "correct" to spades on hands with a doubleton spade, I think if partner sits for 2♦, there's a decent chance it will be right. If partner bids 2♠, I'm raising at least to 3♠. If I had a gun to my head, I'd rather raise 2♠ to 4♠ than pass 2♠. Using the guideline of "a suitable minimum," and looking at cards for partner like ♥A, ♦QT, it's just too possible that we have a game that partner won't be able to even catch a whiff of. Yes, even at pairs, where 170 could be good.

It's a 13-count, but it's also a 5-loser hand. But LTC is only useful when there's a fit. So before I commit to any number of spades, which will necessarily involve an evaluation on my part of how hard to push the hand, I'm going to give partner a chance to tell me whether there's a fit or not. That's another reason I like 2♦ -- it shows a wider range of hands on my end, and it's still not clear to me what this hand is worth. I'm rebidding 2♠ over 2H, showing 6-4 with a better-than-minimum (since I didn't rebid 2♠).

This wasn't a hand I played, but one I kibbed. Opener's rebid was 3♠, which I think is about right if you have to bid some number of spades. But it could still miss a game easily if partner has a fit (doubleton), and it could still go down if he doesn't. I thought it was an interesting hand, and posed it as a panel question. There were 2♠, 3♠, and 2♦ bidders, and more 2♠ calls than I expected, from some very good players (though it wasn't universal). I still think 2♠ is too conservative, though.

[kenrexford]

2♣.

This seems obvious for me, because I must disagree with Justin, but he has me boxed in.

[Lobowolf]

kenrexford, on Aug 10 2008, 02:51 PM, said:

2♣.

This seems obvious for me, because I must disagree with Justin, but he has me boxed in.

I have to admit, 2♣ did not occur to me.

[dburn]

Lobowolf, on Aug 9 2008, 08:29 PM, said:

red vs. red, matchpoints.  Unopposed bidding.  Your rebid, after:

1♠ - 1NT (forcing);
??

♠AKQxxx
♥x
♦KJxx
♣xx

It is a bit difficult to answer questions of this kind without knowing what partner would expect me to have for a first-seat, game-all 1♠ opening at matchpoints. If he expects me to have a sound opening bid in these circumstances, I would not contemplate 3♠, but if he expects me to open 1♠ with a small diamond instead of the king, then I might rebid 3♠ (though I probably would not).

I confess that I don't understand at all rebidding diamonds at matchpoints (even at IMPs I wouldn't do it, though I would have a lot more sympathy with it). Quite a lot of the time this will get me to 2♦ facing a singleton spade and three or four diamonds, and at matchpoint scoring that will be a disaster on stilts. Sure, there are hands where rebidding 2♦ will get me to a cold game (or even slam) in diamonds when rebidding 2♠ would have got me to a partscore in spades (imagine partner with ♠x ♥xxx ♦Axxxxx ♣Axx). But for every time partner has that, there will be a few hundred times when he has such as ♠x ♥Q10xx ♦Qxx ♣Kxxxx, and if you want to play those hands in 2♦ instead of 2♠, good luck to you.

Of course, I would not have this problem. I would rebid 2♣ (diamonds) and over 2♦ I would bid 2♠. For some reason, though, I suspect I would be in a minority even among experts.

[Lobowolf]

I agree that sometimes you'll play 2♦ when you should be in spades, but I think a fair portion of the time you're in 2♦, it'll be a decent spot. Partner knows it's matchpoints, too. Also, some of the time you bid 2♦, you'll get another shot over the opps' reopening 2♥ bid.

While 2♦ may get you some 110's and 130's where 140's and 170's are available, I think it's more likely to get you to 620, which is a good score, even at matchpoints. Yup, it's 13 points, but it's also a 5-loser hand. Maybe I should stop guessing and run some DealMaster Pro hands to check my judgment, but I'd guess that on a comfortable majority of hands where partner has 6-9 HCP and two spades, we have 10 tricks available. And on almost none of those hands will partner have a second bid over 2♠, but he will have one over 2♦.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Aug 10 2008, 07:04 PM, said:

Maybe I should stop guessing and run some DealMaster Pro hands to check my judgment

Don't bother! We have already confirmed it is a few hundred times more likely that partner will pass 2♦ when you belong in spades than that 2♦ will get you to a good game or slam you would otherwise have missed.

[Lobowolf]

I'm lazy, and you're an enabler.

[skjaeran]

Lobowolf, on Aug 10 2008, 11:44 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 10 2008, 02:51 PM, said:

2♣.

This seems obvious for me, because I must disagree with Justin, but he has me boxed in.

I have to admit, 2♣ did not occur to me.

What, you don't play transfers here? (I do).