[karlson]

matchpoints, w/r

x
x
AT9xx
AT9xxx

1 ♦ by partner. Your options are

- Any level of diamonds is natural, weakish
- 2♠ showing a game force with diamonds. Partner will show shortness.
- 2♥ showing an invite with diamonds (usually, but not always, 5+ diamonds, you also have 2N invitational). Partner will show either concentration below 3m, or shortness with a GF.
- 3M splinter
- 2♣ game forcing

[mike777]

invite in D.

[OleBerg]

What does 1♦ show?

[karlson]

1d is standard, strong NT context, 4 cards unless 4432, we open pretty sound in the minors.

[peachy]

Gameforce in diamonds, 2S in your system.
In your system, if opener does not have shortness (I assume *shortness* really means singleton or void, not xx), what are his systemic bids without shortness? I think shortness in major can be ruled out and I strongly suspect his hand has no singleton club either.

[jdonn]

I bid 3♠ since it's my most preemptive option and nothing will allow me to describe my hand perfectly.

[han]

2C fit non jump.

[whereagles]

2♣ + self-propel to the 5 level, unless pard stops to dbl their 4M.

[gnasher]

People seem to be planning a lot of bidding. Given our shape and RHO's silence, isn't it quite likely that partner has a 4=4=3=2 shape?

I'd just show an invitation for the time being. I can always change my mind if the opponents get together in a major.

[rogerclee]

This hand is worth a GF, so the issue is whether 2♣ or 2♠ is better. It seems to me that the continuations over 2♣ are a little easier, so I will do that.

[nige1]

karlson, on May 31 2008, 11:16 AM, said:

matchpoints, w/r ♠ x ♥ x ♦ AT9xx ♣ AT9xxx
1 ♦ by partner. Your options are
- Any level of diamonds is natural, weakish
- 2♠ showing a game force with diamonds. Partner will show shortness.
- 2♥ showing an invite with diamonds (usually, but not always, 5+ diamonds, you also have 2N invitational). Partner will show either concentration below 3m, or shortness with a GF.
- 3M splinter
- 2♣ game forcing

IMO 3♠ = 10, 3♥ = 9, 5♦ = 8, 2♣ = 7, 2♠ = 6, 2♥ = 5.

[xcurt]

I'll show a GF in diamonds. If partner has the weak NT hand type, after 1D-2S; 2N (no shortness)-3C; 3N I'll give partner a chance to win the board in the play. The CT9 are huge, any club honor gives us good chances to take 5 clubs, the DA, and 3 major suit tricks when partner has the 4432 minimum. I think I can handle LHO doubling 2S and RHO bounding; I'll bid 5D and then double any further competition.

2C will probably get 2M or 2N after which 3D-something I cannot bid 3NT if it's right. I'm not prepared to give up good chances at 430 to play diamonds at matchpoints. If there is a slam, starting 2S probably gets there as frequently as starting 2C.

Inviting is false economy, if anything good is happening (partner has extras, big D fit, big C fit) I will be unable to convince partner that this is now a slam auction, and I will be forced to guess the final contract. Since I can't bid 3NT I'm going to guess 6 of a minor. If I'm going to do that, I might as well try to bid a slam scientifically.

Curt

[pclayton]

I would just invite. GFing this isn't horrible but I want to let pard out with a weak NT. If I played weak NT's where pard has real diamonds or a strong NT, I'd happily GF this.

[OleBerg]

2♠.

Weighted this a long time against 2♥, as I generally dont want to mislead partner.

I plan to bid to the 5-level anyway, and my two aces are enough for me, to respect a warning-double from partner, if the opponents bid to five of a major.

We might very well end up in a game, but we will simply miss to many slams, if I start by inviting.

Of course I fear 4-4-3-2, and if opps stay silent, and partner makes his strongest attempt at getting to 3nt, I might pass.

[helene_t]

han, on May 31 2008, 08:53 PM, said:

2C fit non jump.

Blacky's status as "most frequentry abused convention" is being challenged.

[NickRW]

gnasher, on May 31 2008, 10:56 PM, said:

People seem to be planning a lot of bidding.  Given our shape and RHO's silence, isn't it quite likely that partner has a 4=4=3=2 shape?

I'd just show an invitation for the time being.  I can always change my mind if the opponents get together in a major.

Think I basically agree with this. No option is ideal. 2♠ and 2♣ game forcing could get us into 5♦ when it really isn't on. Either 3M is quite likely to induce partner to bid 3N with a robust stopper there completely unaware that he needs the same thing in oM. 4♦ could be right - but there again will partner raise to 5 when he should? 5♦ could be right. I'm not sure 2♥ invitational is correct either - but it seems the most accurate for now and I'll get to take a view later - at which time it may be as much of a guess as it is now - or perhaps I'll learn something useful before then.

Nick