your bid?
Partner X and you have 7 cards in LHO's suit
#2
Posted 2012-May-19, 03:43
#3
Posted 2012-May-19, 10:17
Between opener's hand and this hand there are a minimum of 10 ♦s. Chances are that 2 entries will be required to set them up.
Also, I'm a bit worried about ♣s. Partner shouldn't have more than 5. If opener has a minor 2 suiter, my diamonds are dead. Or, if, more likely, opener is opening better minor, ♣s will set behind partner's hand.
So I'll be a little conservative and bid only 2 NT with this hand.
#4
Posted 2012-May-19, 10:28
rmnka447, on 2012-May-19, 10:17, said:
Between opener's hand and this hand there are a minimum of 10 ♦s. Chances are that 2 entries will be required to set them up.
Also, I'm a bit worried about ♣s. Partner shouldn't have more than 5. If opener has a minor 2 suiter, my diamonds are dead. Or, if, more likely, opener is opening better minor, ♣s will set behind partner's hand.
So I'll be a little conservative and bid only 2 NT with this hand.
You may have nailed it with this analysis of yours. The chances are now increasing that either the takeout double or the 1♠ bid by South were made with insufficient values. So who do you think screwed up with their bid?
The 1♠ bid from South makes me think partner is the one who screwed up here. West needs to proceed with caution now. Getting overboard happens easily in a sequence like this.
#5
Posted 2012-May-19, 17:00
32519, on 2012-May-19, 10:28, said:
It isn't necessary that anyone has: HCP round the table could be 11, 11, 5, with one floating somewhere. If anyone has deviated, I think it's most likely to be South, as a 1♠ 'baby-psyche' here is not unheard of. Still, I will proceed with caution with 1NT, as it may not be possible to set up the ♦, and partner may have difficulty making many ♣. It isn't out of the question that we are better off in ♥, but I don't like to bid a 3-card suit when partner might only have 3 of them.
#6
Posted 2012-May-20, 04:23
#7
Posted 2012-May-20, 14:05
FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-20, 04:23, said:
This was my inclination, but we might not be able to show an invitational hand if we choose this route. That is probably fine though, our hand is really not that good with diamonds bid on our left and often we will be able to invite anyways if it comes back to us at 1N or 2C.
Playing this hand in a NT partial instead of a diamond partial seems really silly.
#8
Posted 2012-May-20, 14:07
#9
Posted 2012-May-21, 17:08
#10
Posted 2012-May-22, 00:35
#12
Posted 2012-May-22, 10:59
Dianne, I'm holding in my hand a small box of chocolate bunnies... --Agent Dale Cooper
#13
Posted 2012-May-22, 21:48
#14
Posted 2012-May-22, 22:20
Antrax, on 2012-May-22, 21:48, said:
no
#15
Posted 2012-May-22, 23:01
plum_tree, on 2012-May-22, 00:40, said:
This is not a x. This is a 2C bid.No, I would not bid 3NT with this hand after 2C.