[awm]

♠Axx ♥xxx ♦Txxx ♣AKx

IMPs, vulnerable, 1st seat:

Pass - Pass - 1♦ - Pass

What's your call now? You're playing 2/1, no special agreements that would apply to this hand. Style is to pass almost all balanced 11s in 1st/2nd, open almost all balanced 12s. Partner might open light in 3rd seat with a decent suit. Inverted minors are still on by passed hand, but would not be forcing (i.e. show a limit raise only).

[gnasher]

If you can bid 2♦ to show an invitational hand with four diamonds, why wouldn't you do that?

[awm]

gnasher, on 2011-April-29, 03:23, said:

If you can bid 2♦ to show an invitational hand with four diamonds, why wouldn't you do that?

Maybe I should.. heck, at the table I did. But it is possible that partner has only three diamonds, and notrump might play better opposite a balanced partner with four diamonds too.

[gnasher]

awm, on 2011-April-29, 03:25, said:

Maybe I should.. heck, at the table I did. But it is possible that partner has only three diamonds, and notrump might play better opposite a balanced partner with four diamonds too.

If partner has a 4=4=3=2 12-count and we have all this, it would be unlucky to go down in 2♦.

[helene_t]

2♦. 3NT plays better from partner's side and besides it shows our values without hanging partner for opening light. And it's IMPs so no need for desperate notrump bids.

IMHO it is not close at all.

[han]

Agree with the previous posters, 2D is really obvious. It describes our hand, allows partner to stay low, and doesn't wrongside a possible 3NT. It's pretty much perfect, especially at IMPs.

[Yu18772]

hmm...I am kind of familiar with what happened next - , but you see - you were right.

[Foxx]

One of my very first partners on BBO taught me to open all 11 point hands that contain AAK.

So far, the advice has worked out well.

[awm]

So perhaps this was bad luck. Partner held: ♠QJx ♥Qxxx ♦AJxx ♣QJ

I raised to 2♦ and we played there. The lead was a spade to the king, followed by three rounds of hearts (declarer's RHO showing out on the third round) and a heart ruffed and over-ruffed. There was still at least one diamond to lose, and declarer guessed the suit wrong (it was an original KQ9x onside) to end up losing two diamonds for -200.

At the other table in our team event 2NT made (probably not best defense).

Of course, opening my hand would've lead to 3NT (down one or two). A 1NT response was the winning action this time (making for sure) with 2NT being sketchy but having better chances than 2♦.

[Gerben42]

Bad luck you play a 4-4 fit at a seemingly comfy level.

[P_Marlowe]

2D - given that I am a passed hand, the bidding may even end with the 2D call.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Phil]

awm, on 2011-April-29, 03:25, said:

Maybe I should.. heck, at the table I did. But it is possible that partner has only three diamonds, and notrump might play better opposite a balanced partner with four diamonds too.

Over 2♦ would 2N by partner be forcing or not?

[whereagles]

2♦ is preferable to a NT bid because it is possible that pard has a singleton in a major, in which case the hand will play better in a suit. Note that if pard does have a singleton major, he'll have 5 diamonds, which suits you just fine.

If pard bids 2/3NT after your raise, hands are flat opposite flat, so you're back in NT when you belong in it.

[JLOGIC]

whereagles, on 2011-May-03, 03:31, said:

2♦ is preferable to a NT bid because it is possible that pard has a singleton in a major, in which case the hand will play better in a suit. Note that if pard does have a singleton major, he'll have 5 diamonds, which suits you just fine.

If pard bids 2/3NT after your raise, hands are flat opposite flat, so you're back in NT when you belong in it.

If partner has a singleton major, he will never pass a 1N response so it doesn't matter. The reason to bid 2D is because 1N is an underbid and also wrongsides NT. If partner bids over 2D we are very likely to have a game, and we're vul at imps. Some of those hands he would have passed 1N with.

It is quite likely that 2D and 1N are equally safe when partner is minimum, so it's just much better to get the hand off of our chest while not risking our safety level and also keeping 3N from partners side in play. On this hand 1N makes and 2D goes down, that's pretty unlucky.

At matchpoints I would definitely bid 1N since NT will often make 120 or 150 when diamonds does worse. That seems much more unlikely than 1N making 90 and diamonds making 110. Of course, we still might miss an occasional game since 1N is an underbid.

[awm]

Our method over inverted minors is that 2♥ by opener is artificial showing any minimum and 2NT would be forcing. In principle opener could've bid 2♥ on this hand and probably reached 2NT. But holding four diamonds opposite a passed hand there is no particularly obvious reason to do that?

[gnasher]

awm, on 2011-May-03, 09:44, said:

Our method over inverted minors is that 2♥ by opener is artificial showing any minimum and 2NT would be forcing. In principle opener could've bid 2♥ on this hand and probably reached 2NT. But holding four diamonds opposite a passed hand there is no particularly obvious reason to do that?

No, there's no reason whatever to do that. If you have a 4-4 fit and two balanced hands, two of the suit will hardly ever be worse than 2NT. In fact, three of the suit will rarely be worse than 2NT. These probabilities aren't changed by the fact that you found a single deal where 2NT makes and 2♦ goes down.

[whereagles]

JLOGIC, on 2011-May-03, 08:31, said:

If partner has a singleton major, he will never pass a 1N response so it doesn't matter. The reason to bid 2D is because 1N is an underbid and also wrongsides NT. If partner bids over 2D we are very likely to have a game, and we're vul at imps.

Well, if you judge the 1 level to be the correct level then 1NT certainly is ok.

[han]

awm, will you stop asking questions to which you very well know the answer. You bid well and you were unlucky. Stuff happens.