[Charlie Yu]

Pass, 2D deserves to find p in 1534 or even 1525.

[aguahombre]

Charlie Yu, on 2013-August-29, 01:07, said:

Pass, 2D deserves to find p in 1534 or even 1525.

And you deserve to find partner with 5-3-4-1, 5-4-5-0, or a host of other distributions. What fun if they take the first 9 or ten tricks when you could have taken eleven in Diamonds.

Of course you do have an opportunity to annoy the hell out of an opponent who balances and allows you to get to the right strain later.

[VM1973]

I think the hand is too strong to rebid 2♠. I'll bid 2♦. As others have pointed out, it's easy to envision a hand that partner would have passed initially but still makes a game in diamonds.

[ArtK78]

jillybean, on 2013-August-16, 08:16, said:

There is rarely such a thing as a non problem on bbf

2♦ is clearly the book bid.

I think both pass and 2♣ have merit. My style after a forcing nt is to make the cheapest bid in a suit where I have tolerance to avoid forcing partner to the three level, I don't know why I would change this after a non forcing nt.

We may have a semantic problem.

This is an obvious 2♦ bid.

In my opinion, neither passing 1NT nor bidding 2♣ has any merit. That is not to say that, on occasion, the winning action might be to pass 1NT or to bid 2♣. That is not the same thing as saying that either of those actions has any merit. You might as well just leap to 3NT - occasionally, it will make. But I don't think that leaping to 3NT has any merit (aside from the calamity that will result if partner takes another action over 3NT).

[PhilKing]

ArtK78, on 2013-August-29, 14:04, said:

In my opinion, neither passing 1NT nor bidding 2♣ has any merit.

So, do you have a strong opinion, or not?

[RSClyde]

The hand is certainly not too strong for 2♠. I mean it's only 13 and you're a spade short.

I really don't see 2♣, for every distribution partner can have where clubs is right, there is an analogous one where diamonds is. The converse however is not true, since with equal length, diamonds will be correct and you will fail to reach it. Could that make it easier to reach 5♦? Why should it? If partner has long enough diamonds to bid them freely over 2♣, I'll assume that he can raise diamonds when I bid them, if not then he has a very poor hand anyway.

This reminds me of an opponent who had a 4342 shape and bid 2♦ over my partner's 1nt (diamonds and a major). When his partner bid a pass/correct 2♥ he just passed saying "I'll correct when they double." The 5-4 spade fit would have played better than the 3-3 hearts.

Anyway, I think dreaming of game is a little aggressive at this point. Let's start by looking for the right partial and see if partner shows some life.

[VM1973]

RSClyde, on 2013-August-29, 15:45, said:

The hand is certainly not too strong for 2♠. I mean it's only 13 and you're a spade short.

I really don't see 2♣, for every distribution partner can have where clubs is right, there is an analogous one where diamonds is. The converse however is not true, since with equal length, diamonds will be correct and you will fail to reach it. Could that make it easier to reach 5♦? Why should it? If partner has long enough diamonds to bid them freely over 2♣, I'll assume that he can raise diamonds when I bid them, if not then he has a very poor hand anyway.

This reminds me of an opponent who had a 4342 shape and bid 2♦ over my partner's 1nt (diamonds and a major). When his partner bid a pass/correct 2♥ he just passed saying "I'll correct when they double." The 5-4 spade fit would have played better than the 3-3 hearts.

Anyway, I think dreaming of game is a little aggressive at this point. Let's start by looking for the right partial and see if partner shows some life.

A lot of what you say is sound. However, I disagree that the hand is not too strong for a simple 2♠ bid.

As you may remember, The Hog posted a theoretical responder's hand of:

♠ xx
♥ xxxx
♦ KQxxx
♣ Ax

and pointed out that 5♦ is an excellent contract. This is the kind of hand where one side will say "I only had 13" and the other will say "I only had 9" and wonder why they're cold for 11 tricks.

Opener's hand has 31 zar points, which is more than a king above a minimum opener. A 2♦ bid seems, to me at least, to be an excellent call that will lead to the best contract whether it be a partial or a game.

[RSClyde]

VM1973, on 2013-August-29, 16:13, said:

A lot of what you say is sound. However, I disagree that the hand is not too strong for a simple 2♠ bid.

As you may remember, The Hog posted a theoretical responder's hand of:

♠ xx
♥ xxxx
♦ KQxxx
♣ Ax

and pointed out that 5♦ is an excellent contract. This is the kind of hand where one side will say "I only had 13" and the other will say "I only had 9" and wonder why they're cold for 11 tricks.

Opener's hand has 31 zar points, which is more than a king above a minimum opener. A 2♦ bid seems, to me at least, to be an excellent call that will lead to the best contract whether it be a partial or a game.

If I had AKQJxx, Jx, Jx, xxx in 4th seat I'd open 2♠. That hand has 28 Zar points. How can there be an entire level of bidding (opening 1♠ and then rebidding 2♠) between these two hands?