[gwnn]

2♠-? (RHO dealt and opened)
2♦-p-2♠-p-p-? (RHO dealt and we waited, 2♦ is forcing)

Scoring: IMP

---

Would u pass or bid?

[whereagles]

2NT both cases

[kenberg]

Mini-quibble: I voted for no/yes but then, re-reading, I see the question is "Would you pass or bid" to which I guess the logical answer is yes, I would pass or bid.

Anyway, my no/yes meant I would pass in the first case and bid in the second.

[cherdano]

What was 2♦? If a multi, I would have doubled to show a weak NT.

[gwnn]

Yea multi, I should have specified... I also forgot to specify this is a semi-pickup partnership, X assumed to be genuine diamond overcall.

[cherdano]

gwnn, on Jan 27 2007, 10:33 PM, said:

Yea multi, I should have specified... I also forgot to specify this is a semi-pickup partnership, X assumed to be genuine diamond overcall.

Damn. I thought since I had to make up the meaning of 2♦, I could make up the meaning of my double, too

[kenberg]

My thinking with the pass over direct 2S, but a delayed bid (2C) over the multi:

2S-pass: If partner has values and passes I may regret this, but if lho has values I may regret bidding. I don't much care for any of the choices. Double is out partly because of the three card heart holding but more because of the two card diamond holding. As to 2NT, my worry would be that any time partner has a hand where I can make 8 tricks he will raise to 3NT. Similarly with 3C. Maybe it's too pessimistic but I pass.

2D-P-2S(pass/correct)-pass-pass-?

Now I can bid w/o partner getting excited, and I do so. 3C. This still could be a disaster. LHO apparently has some hearts and probably short spades or at least so I expect from the 2S. Maybe no one has a fit here.


Direct doubling of 2D (not a listed option) would be the rough equivalent of a take-out X of a 2S bid as I defend the multi. I wouldn't do that here, although it seems a bit safer than doubling a direct 2S since 2H might be available as a response. My experience defending against the multi is limited and so I will eagerly watch for other views.

[zasanya]

gwnn, on Jan 27 2007, 03:33 PM, said:

Yea multi, I should have specified... I also forgot to specify this is a semi-pickup partnership, X assumed to be genuine diamond overcall.

After a 2♦ multi, doesnt 2♠ mean interested in game if opener has weak 2♥ but not if opener has weak 2♠?
At this vulnerability pass in both cases would be prudent.

[gwnn]

Interested can mean some nice shortage (even in spades) and heart length, also.

[kenberg]

As I understand the 2S response to 2D, 2S means what, operationally, it pretty much has to mean: If the opening 2D was based on spades, please pass. If the opening is based on hearts then I am prepared to play at the 3 level or higher in hearts. With enough hearts, this requires very few points. With a multitude of both hearts and spades, I imagine the bid might be 3H (or 4H) since responder would be as happy (or unhappy) playing in whichever major partner has. I don't play the multi myself so I certainly may have this wrong, but I expect 2S to be a disinterest in moving higher when opener's suit is spades, but an interest in moving higher if the opener's suit is hearts. The reason for this interest in moving higher in hearts could be strength or it could be preemptive, to be declared later.

Lazily, I hadn't checked the vul. Being vul certainly is a further reason for caution. A guy could go for quite a number here. At mps, I would be comfortable with a delayed 3C after the multi. At imps, vul, I guess I still try it. Not comfortable at all. And would not quarrel with a pard who passed it out.

[cherdano]

zasanya, on Jan 28 2007, 05:11 PM, said:

gwnn, on Jan 27 2007, 03:33 PM, said:

Yea multi, I should have specified... I also forgot to specify this is a semi-pickup partnership, X assumed to be genuine diamond overcall.

After a 2♦ multi, doesnt 2♠ mean interested in game if opener has weak 2♥ but not if opener has weak 2♠?
At this vulnerability pass in both cases would be prudent.

I am sure some play this agreement, but I think most just play it shows willingness to compete to 3♥. I.e. any hand that would raise a 2♥ opening to 3♥ or more, whether it is for competitive, preemptive or constructive purposes.

[Edmunte1]

1. After (2♠) i would have bid 2NT (15+ - 18). The third spade and good intermediattes in ♣ make me act, trying to protect our game/partscore

2. After (2♦) i would have doubled, showing a 13-15 NT or a strong hand, in my methods. If partner passed (2♠), i'll do too. Pass followed by 2NT shows minors in my methods.

It's obvious that 2♠ opening bid has more preemtive effect than 2♦ Multi. But these things happen when you have 2 at the price of one

[brianshark]

No / Yes

I'll expect partner to protect me in the first, and I'll protect partner in the second.

[P_Marlowe]

No / No.

Unless I can double to show this type of hand.
I am to weak to bid 2NT, I dont have the shape
to make a take out dble, and I dont like 3C
(which is a distant second in the reopening seat.)

With kind regards
Marlowe

[awm]

There is no real safety on this hand over 2♠. Certainly terrible things could happen if you bid (most usually being doubled for penalty or reaching a no-play game after 2NT is raised to 3NT). But terrible things could also happen if you pass (partner will not balance with some flat 10-13 including 3 spades, and game could easily be cold).

I tend to bid with these hands, but it's not with any great degree of confidence. I can understand passing, especially if opponents tend to be sound preempters (making it less likely partner has the missing values).

Over 2♦ multi, this kind of hand is the big win for double as "13-15 balanced" since you can show your hand with relative safety (okay sometimes opponents decide to play 2♦XX but this is pretty rare). If playing a defense to multi where you have no call with this hand, you're pretty much in the same conundrum over 2♦-P-2♠-P-P as you would've been over 2♦ direct. Perhaps you can at least deter partner from overbidding to game if a balancing call would be (by agreement) weaker than a direct bid, but you still have the risk of going for a number (in fact there's even more risk of this since opponents are known not to have a big fit). I'd balance for much the same reasons I'd bid over 2♠, but again not with much confidence.

[mikeh]

Pass

No guarantees. But: this auction is 100% consistent with LHO holding something like x AQxx Qxxx KQ9x as an example... this could be a huge number opposite a partscore. While the glass is half empty approach can be very costly, so can over-enthusiasm on borderline hands.

We didn't have an adequate agreement on our methods.. I use double of 2♦ as balanced 13-15 and would have used that here, risking a 5-2 ♦ fit on occasion.

I am NOT about to roll the dice to attempt to make up for our inadquacies earlier. Sure, I may miss a game, and I will be talking to partner about our multi defence before the next board, but I am going to stay fixed for now.

[civill]

pass/pass;
1,because of RHO's weak;
1,because RHO's Strong;