[ArtK78]

This problem came up in a club game today.

MPs

---

Note that at this vulnerability, the 1♠ opening could be made on as little as 10 HCP.

What is your action?

[mike777]

Non expert answer. I think our choices are 3d gf or pass.

I will try pass but understand 3d.

[MrAce]

I would bid 3 dia.

Alternative is to double and correct 2 sp-3 Cl bids to3 dia to express we are not quite strong to start 3 dia. But most play this dbl promises both minors. If doubling then showing diamonds is available, considering that 1 spade can be weak, I would choose dbl.

Pass would not occur to me tbh. I have an opener with good suit and pd opened.

[mike777]

fwiw I believe that double and then 3d shows a huge hand ..never this hand...dbl is not an option

In fact a direct 3d shows more than this hand but I guess is an option.

[the hog]

3D. Pass also does not occur to me. How on earth could you catch up?

[Cyberyeti]

mike777, on 2014-August-17, 01:14, said:

fwiw I believe that double and then 3d shows a huge hand ..never this hand...dbl is not an option

In fact a direct 3d shows more than this hand but I guess is an option.

If 3♦ is GF as I believe it is, why do you need X/3♦ as really big ?

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2014-August-17, 01:14, said:

fwiw I believe that double and then 3d shows a huge hand ..never this hand...dbl is not an option

You can play X-> 3♦ as stronger but then the immediate 3♦ should be not forcing. This brings us into the realm of NFBs, which are generally difficult to handle at the 3 level. Given the LOB conditions I prefer pass to 3♦ but double seems to cover our bases nicely, as usual being the most flexible call for awkward hands.

[Winstonm]

Negative double and pull any response (other than 3N) to diamonds.

[gszes]

yuck heart holding singleton in spades sure there is some potential but
there is significant risk given the bidding and not really sure what the
reward might be. It is not hard to catch up if we pass and p can reopen.

[gnasher]

gszes, on 2014-August-17, 19:00, said:

It is not hard to catch up if we pass and p can reopen.

How do you propose to "catch up" opposite AQxxx x Kxx AQxx ?

[gszes]

gnasher, on 2014-August-18, 00:50, said:

How do you propose to "catch up" opposite AQxxx x Kxx AQxx ?

you mean after 1s 2h p p reopening x????
I would start with a simple 3h (in case p has stuff in hearts and
wants to bid 3n and if p cannot bid 3n I would carry on with 5d.
P may or may not want to carry on to 6d but they should have a
pretty darn good idea on what my hand should look like and playing
me for either black suit king would be very reasonable since I failed
to preemptively jump to 5d right away.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

ArtK78, on 2014-August-16, 20:15, said:

This problem came up in a club game today.

MPs

---

Note that at this vulnerability, the 1♠ opening could be made on as little as 10 HCP.

What is your action?

Isn't this a situation for good/bad 2NT ?
Then you would have 2-ways to bid 3D .

[aguahombre]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2014-August-18, 17:19, said:

Isn't this a situation for good/bad 2NT ?
Then you would have 2-ways to bid 3D .

It isn't for us. We only do good/bad when the other guys have a known/shown fit. Here, we could easily have invitational values with hearts stopped, and not want to pray for a reopening double which we probably wouldn't leave in anyway.

The QXX of hearts and the stiff spade tell me I don't have game values for partner...would NegX and bid diamonds with XX in hearts and that queen in any other suit. This one feels like a pass for now.

[Zelandakh]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2014-August-18, 17:19, said:

Isn't this a situation for good/bad 2NT ?
Then you would have 2-ways to bid 3D .

The majority of pairs recruit the 2NT response as a raise Don. See Robson-Segal for the usual reasons why this is a good idea here.

[gordontd]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2014-August-18, 17:19, said:

Isn't this a situation for good/bad 2NT ?
Then you would have 2-ways to bid 3D .

I have partners with whom I play that, but I'm not sure I'd treat this hand as bad anyway.

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2014-August-19, 02:44, said:

The majority of pairs recruit the 2NT response as a raise Don. See Robson-Segal for the usual reasons why this is a good idea here.

This is popular in some circles , but whenever 2NT is bid without a jump there is no general agreement this should show a fit.
In the old days experts observed we have not enough ways of raising partner.
Nowadays some partnerships have no way of bidding a suit but too many ways of showing a fit.

For me cue-bidding opponent's suit is good enough to show a limit raise or better, when 2NT is not available as a jump bid.

One idea I first learned in Poland is to use 2NT and higher bids as transfers in these scenarios where RHO has overcalled at the two level.
If opener accepts the transfer it is not forcing.
A sort of generalized Rubensohl.

The scenario is slightly different when there was a jump overcall and when (like here) the overcall was in a lower ranking suit.
This last scenario gives you 2 cuebids to show different other handtypes.
You can directly overcall in overcaller's suit and you can now transfer into overcaller suit.

For example after

1♠-2♥

Double: Negativ (could be a balanced hand interested in notrumps)
2♠: normal raise
2NT: club suit
3♣: diamond suit
3♥: spade invite or better
3♦: anything else you like to describe (e.g asking for help in overcaller's suit)

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

It is certainly true that using transfers in competition is an increasingly popular method Rainer, quite likely an optimal method in many cases. That said I have seen (on vugraph) some very good players get themselves in some very silly situations by being confused using them so a little care needs to be taken when lesser players want to get in on the act.

Within your suggested system it seems to me that using 3♦ as the 3 card (defensive) raise would give you the best of all worlds. Even then one should consider doubling and converting to 3♦ on this hand. That could now be played specifically as an invite if desired, since both competitive and GF diamonds hands are already accouted for through 3♣.

[dake50]

This is popular in some circles , but whenever 2NT is bid without a jump there is no general agreement this should show a fit.
In the old days experts observed we have not enough ways of raising partner.
Nowadays some partnerships have no way of bidding a suit but too many ways of showing a fit.

For me cue-bidding opponent's suit is good enough to show a limit raise or better, when 2NT is not available as a jump bid.

One idea I first learned in Poland is to use 2NT and higher bids as transfers in these scenarios where RHO has overcalled at the two level.
If opener accepts the transfer it is not forcing.
A sort of generalized Rubensohl.

The scenario is slightly different when there was a jump overcall and when (like here) the overcall was in a lower ranking suit.
This last scenario gives you 2 cuebids to show different other handtypes.
You can directly overcall in overcaller's suit and you can now transfer into overcaller suit.

For example after

1S-(2H)

Double: Negativ (could be a balanced hand interested in notrumps)
2S: normal raise
2NT: club suit
3C: diamond suit
3H: spade invite or better
3D: anything else you like to describe (e.g asking for help in overcaller's suit)

Rainer Herrmann


*** Dbl: could be converted for penalties, thus promising >= A+K.
*** 2NT,3C,3D: could be help suit raise
*** 2NT: could be arbitrary strong IFF certain rebids are chosen. Eg. big 1-suiter, 2-suiter, bal w/o stop, big bal w stop
Some bid reserved for a big hand, not a raise, to be shown next.
I suggest "lowest" transfer may rebid to show very strong/near slammy not fitting.

[gordontd]

dake50, on 2014-August-19, 08:19, said:

*** Dbl: could be converted for penalties, thus promising >= A+K.
*** 2NT,3C,3D: could be help suit raise
*** 2NT: could be arbitrary strong IFF certain rebids are chosen. Eg. big 1-suiter, 2-suiter, bal w/o stop, big bal w stop
Some bid reserved for a big hand, not a raise, to be shown next.
I suggest "lowest" transfer may rebid to show very strong/near slammy not fitting.

Your method of quoting without using the facility provided for it (clicking on the Reply button in the post you want to quote), makes it sufficiently irritating to work out who said what, that I tend not to bother.

[WellSpyder]

gordontd, on 2014-August-19, 09:20, said:

Your method of quoting without using the facility provided for it (clicking on the Reply button in the post you want to quote), makes it sufficiently irritating to work out who said what, that I tend not to bother.

I was just thinking exactly the same.