[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

?

---

Do you open this,

playing SAYC?
playing 2/1?

[rogerclee]

Yeah I'd definitely open this 1♦. Not sure why SAYC or 2/1 would affect my decision in any considerable way.

[P_Marlowe]

Yes, I open, this is certainly dead min, but I open.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

1♦:1♠
2♦:3♣
3nt

---

This was the auction, not the best ending. My partner wasn't amused.

[kenrexford]

jillybean2, on Jun 30 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♦:1♠
2♦:3♣
3nt

---

This was the auction, not the best ending.

Yes, I'd open.

I recently passed a similar 2♦ call with a similar 11-count and caught some hell for way underbidding the hand at IMPs. 3NT failed, though. I don't like it, but passing with a stiff diamond might be the winning call a lot more than most people think.

If I had to bid with the North hand, I'd bid 2♥ or 2NT before 3♣, personally.

If I had to bid after 3♣ with the South hand, I'd bid 3♦.

I think the best ending I'd reach is 2♥ (1♦-1♠-2♦-2♥-P). 2♥ probably fares well.

[Echognome]

jillybean2, on Jun 30 2008, 12:48 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♦:1♠
2♦:3♣
3nt

---

This was the auction, not the best ending. My partner wasn't amused.

I think the auction should have gone:

1♦ - 1♠
2♦ - 2NT
P/3♦

Your partner chose to GF, which I think is an aggressive action given the short diamonds. Give your partner Jxxxx xx Kx AKxx and I'd be much more understanding.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean2, on Jun 30 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

<snip>

This was the auction, not the best ending. My partner wasn't amused.

I would not be amused either, after having
seen what the q!?#-!! 3C bid lead to.

Partner had an invitation, nothing more, but
decided to force to game, surprise, surprise
... the combined strength was not enough.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pclayton]

Echognome, on Jun 30 2008, 01:08 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Jun 30 2008, 12:48 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♦:1♠
2♦:3♣
3nt

---

This was the auction, not the best ending. My partner wasn't amused.

I think the auction should have gone:

1♦ - 1♠
2♦ - 2NT
P/3♦

Your partner chose to GF, which I think is an aggressive action given the short diamonds. Give your partner Jxxxx xx Kx AKxx and I'd be much more understanding.

One of Goldsmith's credos is that 2N is forcing upon the holder of a 6-bagger. I agree with 2N, but this hand won't make 2N on power. 3♦ is clear for me.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Jun 30 2008, 04:37 PM, said:

One of Goldsmith's credos is that 2N is forcing upon the holder of a 6-bagger. I agree with 2N, but this hand won't make 2N on power. 3♦ is clear for me.

What sense does that make when you have already shown 6? I think you are misinterpreting the tip. If partner wants to play one of 3♦ or 3NT, he bids 3♦ instead of 2NT.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Jun 30 2008, 06:24 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jun 30 2008, 04:37 PM, said:

One of Goldsmith's credos is that 2N is forcing upon the holder of a 6-bagger. I agree with 2N, but this hand won't make 2N on power. 3♦ is clear for me.

What sense does that make when you have already shown 6? I think you are misinterpreting the tip. If partner wants to play one of 3♦ or 3NT, he bids 3♦ instead of 2NT.

Not to me. 2N can easily conceal diamond support, and just shows a different hand type than 3♦. I can't see how its ever right for the diamond bidder in this auction to play exactly 2N.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Jun 30 2008, 11:06 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 30 2008, 06:24 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jun 30 2008, 04:37 PM, said:

One of Goldsmith's credos is that 2N is forcing upon the holder of a 6-bagger. I agree with 2N, but this hand won't make 2N on power. 3♦ is clear for me.

What sense does that make when you have already shown 6? I think you are misinterpreting the tip. If partner wants to play one of 3♦ or 3NT, he bids 3♦ instead of 2NT.

Not to me. 2N can easily conceal diamond support, and just shows a different hand type than 3♦. I can't see how its ever right for the diamond bidder in this auction to play exactly 2N.

So just make it forcing like so many others. Bidding 3♦ just because you reject the invitation is dumb. What if your diamonds are Qxxxxx?

[mike777]

jillybean2, on Jun 30 2008, 02:29 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

?

---

Do you open this,

playing SAYC?
playing 2/1?

Good post.

I thought just another in a series of what is an opening one level bid in first or second seat and therefore what is a game forcing responsive hand. I note not one poster so far thought in sayc or 2/1 you could open a weak 2d.

[oldman5757]

I'd open 1 ♦ in 1st or 2nd seat, might give some serious thought to 2♦ in 3rd seat, and would definitely p/o in 4th.

On the auction as given, I think 3♣ is bad bid, forcing to game with no fit identified. Despite the singleton ♦, 2NT states the values and shape much better. In SAYC, 2NT can be passed, and in 2/1, I play that it is forcing one round. In either case as opener, I'd rebid 3♦.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

One of Goldsmith's credos is that 2N is forcing upon the holder of a 6-bagger.

Phil, I'm fairly certain that Goldsmith meant this in the context of a 2nt opening bid, where the 2nt bidder is known to hold 2-5 cds, and there is no room to find out if the suit runs or not, so just bid 3nt in case there's a good fit.

This is an entirely different auction, responder knows opener's suit, thus does *not* have a great fit since he would just bid 3nt if he thought likely to run the suit.

[pclayton]

Stephen Tu, on Jul 1 2008, 07:08 AM, said:

Quote

One of Goldsmith's credos is that 2N is forcing upon the holder of a 6-bagger.

Phil, I'm fairly certain that Goldsmith meant this in the context of a 2nt opening bid, where the 2nt bidder is known to hold 2-5 cds, and there is no room to find out if the suit runs or not, so just bid 3nt in case there's a good fit.

This is an entirely different auction, responder knows opener's suit, thus does *not* have a great fit since he would just bid 3nt if he thought likely to run the suit.

Stephen:

The exact quote is:

"2NT is forcing on the holder of a six-card suit. If the suit runs, you'll make 3NT, and if it doesn't, you'll go down in 2NT".

Obviously this includes responding to a 2N opening, but it needn't be limited to a 2N opening at all. As a matter of fact, I can't see how anyone can draw an inference about a 2N opening from this statement.

I'll email him and ask him however.

[andy_h]

yay yay yay! But disagree with partner's aggressive 3C.

[pclayton]

Heard back from Jeff:

Hi Jeff:

On your webpage, one of the imperious rules is:

"2NT is forcing on the holder of a six-card suit.
If the suit runs, you'll make 3NT, and if it doesn't,
you'll go down in 2NT".

1. When you wrote this, did you intend it to apply to responding to a 2N opening with a 6 card suit, or anytime the partner of the 2N bidder holds a 6 card suit? Assume its IMPs.

Responding to a 2NT opener is a little different, as you can't
generally stop in 3D or 4C and a little power might make
2NT anyway, so I guess it doesn't apply 100% to that case.

> 2. U hold xx Axxx AQxxxx x and the auction proceeds 1D - 1S - 2D - 2N - ?. We have strongly implied, but not promised a 6 card suit with 2D. Do you think this is an appropriate application of this rule? What is your call?

I think 2NT ought to be forcing here, assuming your
style is that 2D is nearly always 6 cards. The rationale is as
above---either you can make 3NT or you are going down in 2NT.
Kokish believes it's forcing and unlimited. FWIW, I'll nearly
always have six; the only shape with any difficulty is 1453, and
unless the diamonds are very good and the clubs very bad, I'll
tend to rebid 2C.

--Jeff

[jillybean]

For those who bid 3♦ after 3♣; I'd like 3♦ a lot more if we were not in gf but here partner has forced game and we do have a ♥ stopper. Where do you expect the auction to go after 3♦?

[zhams]

i bid 3d ,no 3nt