[awm]

Still MP, all vulnerable this time.

Partner opens 1♦ and RHO passes. I hold:

♠x
♥Jx
♦KJ9
♣KQJTxxx

We're playing 2/1 with fairly standard opening style (1♦ can be 12-14 balanced if diamonds are longer than clubs or with 4-4 in the minors; we don't really open balanced 11s but we certainly might open 11 with a shapely hand).

[kfay]

Wouldn't GF @ MP.

My clubs are awesome so I invite there. 3♣ plz.

This should help shut out the opps. A plus to GF is that I might go down something undoubled in some number of somethings, but could still beat their major-suit partial (game?)... but that's deep!

[mikeh]

if 3♣ is our invite in clubs, it gets my vote.

[Fluffy]

with the perfect 14 beginners make slam, still that looks like a very long shot.

Wich isn't a long shot is playing 5♣ instead of 3NT, out hand doesn't wanna play te short game this time unless partner has got the hand for it, I prefer to force to game in order to have more accuracy in the right game.

EDIT; I was gonna say 3♣ wtp, but then I saw mike voted for it so had to find something else

[MarkDean]

I know it is MPs, but I would still GF. I am sucker for good 7 card suits.

[aguahombre]

3♣ is systemic for us. The extra club? Oh, well. So I showed 10-12 with 6 decent clubs. Sue me.

I imagine "fairly standard" means 2C, then 3C with this hand. So, if playing "fairly standard", that would be my choice.

[peachy]

In my methods. 1D-3C. Invitational hand, long clubs, no major. This gets around the hard-to-bid hands in the style where 2-over-1 is always GF.

This is a max hand for invite so some risk of missing game is involved, but a minimum opener is not forbidden to correct to diamonds if he has six of them, in which case we find probable game. And with minimum and singleton or void club, he passes.

[Jlall]

I'd just invite though I am worried about missing slam because of doing so. We have no aces and only 3 major suit cards so I am fine if it goes all pass.

[jdonn]

I would game force, the problem in my mind with inviting being that an invite in clubs over 1♦ has a lighter range because the other options are often unpalatable if you have like an 8 count with long clubs and a singleton major.

[dealmegold]

2♣ for me is almost a game force - it can be dropped in 4♣ if we fail to find extras or stoppers for NT.

With that in mind I bid 2♣, making it easier to find 3NT.

[gszeszycki]

Still MP, all vulnerable this time.

Partner opens 1♦ and RHO passes. I hold:

♠x
♥Jx
♦KJ9
♣KQJTxxx


hand is just plain too good to merely invite give opener mundane boring stuff like
xxx Axxx AQxx Ax and SIX C is a LAY DOWN
Axx xxxx Axxx Ax and 3N only requires 43 hearts and even 5C is on dia finesse
Axx Qxx Axx Ax and 3N is a lay down
Axxx Axx xxxx Ax and 3N is a lay down
AJT AJT Qxxx xxx and 3N is a lay down

i wll pay off to the rare KQJ KQx Qxxx xxx where i cant make much of anything

Give p stronger hands and we have wasted an entire level of bidding by bidding 3c invitational that could have been better utilized searching for slams

[Phil]

gszeszycki, on May 24 2010, 10:52 AM, said:

Still MP, all vulnerable this time.

Partner opens 1♦ and RHO passes. I hold:

♠x
♥Jx
♦KJ9
♣KQJTxxx


hand is just plain too good to merely invite give opener mundane boring stuff like
xxx Axxx AQxx Ax and SIX C is a LAY DOWN
Axx xxxx Axxx Ax and 3N only requires 43 hearts and even 5C is on dia finesse
Axx Qxx Axx Ax and 3N is a lay down
Axxx Axx xxxx Ax and 3N is a lay down
AJT AJT Qxxx xxx and 3N is a lay down

i wll pay off to the rare KQJ KQx Qxxx xxx where i cant make much of anything

Give p stronger hands and we have wasted an entire level of bidding by bidding 3c invitational that could have been better utilized searching for slams

Apparently Gszeszycki's partners get dealt three aces a lot.

Mine don't, so 3♣.

[Jlall]

Are you implying that partner would ever pass a 3C invite with 3 aces including the CA? lol

[Phil]

Jlall, on May 24 2010, 12:40 PM, said:

Are you implying that partner would ever pass a 3C invite with 3 aces including the CA? lol

No, quite the opposite.

My comment was intended to show why GF is a poor idea when partner does not have three-ace hands.

[hrothgar]

I'm wandering in to this one quite late...

I'm going to game force, primarily based on holding KJ9 of Diamonds. Switch the Diamond holding into either major and I suspect that i'd invite.

[neilkaz]

7 nice ♣ and the fitting KJ9 ♦ so I will force to game with 2♣. I certainly don't hate the invite but do think I should take my chances and force game, even at MP.

[Jlall]

Phil, on May 24 2010, 01:12 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 24 2010, 12:40 PM, said:

Are you implying that partner would ever pass a 3C invite with 3 aces including the CA? lol

No, quite the opposite.

My comment was intended to show why GF is a poor idea when partner does not have three-ace hands.

wasnt asking you obv

[nige1]

duplicate post again. Sorry

[nige1]

awm, on May 17 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

Still MP, all vulnerable this time. Partner opens 1♦ and RHO passes.
I hold: ♠ x ♥ Jx ♦ KJ9 ♣ KQJTxxx
We're playing 2/1 with fairly standard opening style (1♦ can be 12-14 balanced if diamonds are longer than clubs or with 4-4 in the minors; we don't really open balanced 11s but we certainly might open 11 with a shapely hand).

IMO 2♣ = 10, invite in ♣ = 8.
There's no edict that bans partner from holding a pudding with aces
eg 5♣ makes opposite: ♠ Axx ♥ KQx ♦ Axxx ♣ xxx
eg 6♣ makes opposite: ♠ xxx ♥ Axx ♦ AQxx ♣ Axx
Otherwise, 3N or 5♣ undoubled may be a good sacrifice against opponents' major partscore/game

[hanp]

Jlall, on May 24 2010, 08:05 PM, said:

Phil, on May 24 2010, 01:12 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 24 2010, 12:40 PM, said:

Are you implying that partner would ever pass a 3C invite with 3 aces including the CA? lol

No, quite the opposite.

My comment was intended to show why GF is a poor idea when partner does not have three-ace hands.

wasnt asking you obv

obv because it is Phil or obv because you were clearly reacting to gszeszycki?