[han]

MPs, red against white

x
KQ
AJ9xxxx
AKx

(1H) - p - (1S) - ??

[kenrexford]

Temptd to set boobie trap.

3♦, planning to double.

[ArtK78]

2♦.

I don't see what else one can do on these cards. I intend to bid again.

The hand is not quite good enough for double followed by diamonds. I need some real stuff from partner to make either 3NT or 5D.

[andy_h]

I'd start with 2D. My hand doesn't look like a x-and-bid hand, plus even if i do that, by the time the auction comes back to me, it could be some high level spades.

[655321]

2♦.

But, (with minors this way around) I would actually prefer to double, and correct any number of clubs below 5♣ to diamonds. The reason I bid 2♦ instead is in case 4♠ comes back - I prefer to follow the diamonds-then-double path instead of the double-then-five-diamonds path.

[joker_gib]

kenrexford, on Jun 11 2008, 01:25 PM, said:

3♦, planning to double.

Double, planning to 3♦

[joker_gib]

ArtK78, on Jun 11 2008, 01:26 PM, said:

The hand is not quite good enough for double followed by diamonds. I need some real stuff from partner to make either 3NT or 5D.

Both minor queens can be enough for 5♦ if the king is onside...

[Apollo81]

2♦, the hand isn't THAT good

[ArtK78]

joker_gib, on Jun 11 2008, 08:38 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jun 11 2008, 01:26 PM, said:

The hand is not quite good enough for double followed by diamonds.  I need some real stuff from partner to make either 3NT or 5D.

Both minor queens can be enough for 5♦ if the king is onside...

AND partner has at least 2, probably 3, diamonds, otherwise you might lose a trick to the ♦10 if partner does not have that card as well.

Yes, if partner has those two specific cards you are close to 50% for game. So I guess the correct call over 1♠ is 5♦. After all, how can you possibly find out if partner has the cards that you need?

[Sambolino]

2♦ then double anything except 3nt

[pclayton]

2♦ for now. Probably 3♦ later. I'm not that enamored with this hand if we can't catch a fit.

[Rossoneri]

2♦

[Echognome]

2♦ Canadian

[kenrexford]

I like 3♦ more and more as I continue to think about this. It's MP. We don't make game. Sure, we might, but it's really unlikely, I think. I'd rather give the opponents a tough immediate decision. If we make 5♦, partner will surprise me, and I'll surprise him by making it.

Summary:

2♦ is for one of two types. Dreamers or wimps.

[CSGibson]

kenrexford, on Jun 11 2008, 09:52 AM, said:

I like 3♦ more and more as I continue to think about this.  It's MP.  We don't make game.  Sure, we might, but it's really unlikely, I think.  I'd rather give the opponents a tough immediate decision.  If we make 5♦, partner will surprise me, and I'll surprise him by making it.

Summary:

2♦ is for one of two types.  Dreamers or wimps. 

I had a similar thought with a less strong hand and a different auction.

Scoring: IMP

(1♦)-P-(1♠)-3♦

---

Where the opps were playing a precision system where 1 diamond could be short. They wound up in 4 spades and misguessed the Q of hearts to go down one because I had already shown "full values" for my preempt. I don't see the same benefit to manipulating the auction here, though, as most of your values are not prone to guesswork, and because you are going to show your hand type very quickly in the subsequent play.

And how will partner react to your double (edit: In the potential auction when you jump-overcall then double later)? Is he supposed to know that this is a possible hand type for you? If so, you can be "in trouble" for not alerting, or for fielding a psyche, and the gains that you made be washed away.

There is too much trouble and not enough benefit to make a 3 diamond call. 2 diamonds for me.

[Echognome]

kenrexford, on Jun 11 2008, 08:52 AM, said:

2♦ is for one of two types. Dreamers or wimps.

I think maybe 2♦ is also for a third type:

Those that don't want to mislead partner about their hand type, unless, of course, you are playing strong jump overcalls...

[han]

You may very well have game and 2♦ makes it far more likely that you get another chance to bid.

But how descriptive do you think 2D followed by double is?

[TylerE]

Jlall, on Jun 11 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

I would X, I don't understand why nobody on the forums will X and bid on any hand (the last one was AQx AKJxxx Kxx x over 1S which is even more clear than this one).

It's weird that the expert community as a whole and meckwell are completely opposite on this issue, but I think that people are going way too far at this point.

Agreed Justin. My first reaction here was X and ♦, wtp?

[OleBerg]

Jlall, on Jun 11 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

I would X, I don't understand why nobody on the forums will X and bid on any hand (the last one was AQx AKJxxx Kxx x over 1S which is even more clear than this one).

It's weird that the expert community as a whole and meckwell are completely opposite on this issue, but I think that people are going way too far at this point.

I agree also.

X and then diamonds should show long, strong diamonds and 3 (or more rare 4) clubs, while diamonds and then double, would be more like 5-4.