[mr1303]

I must admit 1S or 2C don't occur to me. I'm an overbidder so I bid 3D. My partners always have good cards

[MrAce]

lmilne, on 2015-January-28, 23:14, said:

---

Two or three?

What is the smallest change you would have to make to the hand to change you into the other category?

I would bid 2♦

I don't know who you are and whether you are an expert or not. But it does not matter. Please ignore the suggestions/comments about this not being an expert topic. I personally think it was a nice hand to listen to expert opinions about how to evaluate it. I am sorry that it is hijacked.

[Fluffy]

I wouldn't have any problem iff my partner decides to open a strong 1NT with this. It iwll have its downsides with thin games (specially if partner insists on playing 4M), but hiding this hand to opponents in 3NT can be the key.

[Hanoi5]

If 1NT (15-17) were an option, I'd probably stick to that. I prefer 2♦ to 3♦ and this is one of the few instances I do an 'Alvin Roth'.

[Lovera]

I bid 3♦ with this 7th and solid suit it being points in second level (17-19). The more little changing that allow me to bid 2♦ is lacking of Jack of diamond.

[MrAce]

Lovera, on 2015-February-21, 12:08, said:

I bid 3♦ with this 7th and solid suit it being points in second level (17-19). The more little changing that allow me to bid 2♦ is lacking of Jack of diamond.

If KQJTxxx is called a solid suit, then QJT9xxx must be called semi solid suit nowadays.

[Lovera]

MrAce, on 2015-February-21, 16:26, said:

If KQJTxxx is called a solid suit, then QJT9xxx must be called semi solid suit nowadays.

Yes, the initial type is AKQ10xx or compact. The definition is mine to show presence of many honors in suit one.

[jogs]

lhlyr123, on 2015-January-31, 00:07, said:

2D，一副没有快速赢墩的牌，需要同伴更多的支持才能成局。这是一副有足够赢墩的牌。也是敌方容易犯防守错误的牌。但我更愿意让同伴保持对我的叫牌有信心。

Free, on 2015-January-31, 00:52, said:

Too bad I can't read Chinese (or whatever it is), but I agree with the conclusion

Mbodell, on 2015-January-31, 01:27, said:

Google translates it as: A no quick tricks cards, need more support to peer into the office. This is a card has enough tricks. The enemy is easy to make a defensive mistake cards. But I prefer to let my fellow maintain bid with confidence

https://www.google.c...%20to%20english

That's nice. I was unaware that Google had language to language translations.

[Zelandakh]

MrAce, on 2015-February-21, 16:26, said:

If KQJTxxx is called a solid suit, then QJT9xxx must be called semi solid suit nowadays.

English is not Lovera's mother tongue. For the record, according to the terminology I learned, KQJTxxx is a self-supporting suit (will play opposite a void) and you need to add the ace for it to be "solid" (zero losers). On the OP question, I have a strong preference for 2♦ over 3♦ on this hand type.

[fromageGB]

jogs, on 2015-February-22, 09:13, said:

That's nice.

Next time I play with an English-speaking Chinese, I will ask him how much support you do actually need to peer into the office.

[helene_t]

fromageGB, on 2015-February-24, 07:10, said:

Next time I play with an English-speaking Chinese, I will ask him how much support you do actually need to peer into the office.

To peer into the office presumably means to make a game try. Google is bad at translating bridge lingo because so many words that have a common non-bridge meaning as well are used as bridge lingo in some languages but not in others.

[Lovera]

"The re-bidding with jump in a minor suit is generically based on a solid suit of [almost] 6 cards, with around an Ace and a King [1and a1/2 half tricks]forcing partner to consider 3NT bidding,if plastic valutation reveils that nine tricks are possibile. So [..Stayman system..pag.74]:♠ K 10 3 ♥ 7 5 ♦ A K Q 8 5 4 ♣ A 8 Bidding : 1♦ p 1♠ p 3 ♦ (45)". It is hopeing this example may be usefull, bye.

[Zelandakh]

Lovera, on 2015-February-24, 11:50, said:

♠ K 10 3 ♥ 7 5 ♦ A K Q 8 5 4 ♣ A 8

Can you not see a difference between this hand and the one from the OP?

[Lovera]

Zelandakh, on 2015-February-24, 11:53, said:

Can you not see a difference between this hand and the one from the OP?

It is sure that a difference in the long suit can be seen but in Stayman system AKQxx and KQJ10x are in the same group (of valutation) and called solid suit the first and quasi-solid the second one.

[rhm]

Lovera, on 2015-February-24, 14:22, said:

It is sure that a difference in the long suit can be seen but in Stayman system AKQxx and KQJ10x are in the same group (of valutation) and called solid suit the first and quasi-solid the second one.

The question is not whether the diamonds are suitable or not for 3♦. They are. .
The question is: What is this hand worth at notrumps?
My answer : Not a lot. (Hands lacking first round controls are rarely valuable)
The question is also not whether given time you will have 9 tricks at 3NT. You would.
With this type of hand the question is whether you will have 9 tricks before the defense has 5.

I back the defense, assuming partner would not move over 2♦ but would over 3♦. (I admit there are a few rare exceptions.)

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2015-February-25, 03:53, said:

With this type of hand the question is whether you will have 9 tricks before the defense has 5.

I was rather hoping he would come to this himself. He is obviously someone that knows how to play so not seeing this key difference seems strange to me, a blind spot driven by over-reliance on book material perhaps.

[Phil]

This is a curious hand. From an evaluation standpoint we don't want partner bidding 3N with a random 8-10.

However if partner perks up and shows a good hand im much more interested in slam.

[Lovera]

You, first, have an hand valutable (around) 18 points (!) than an hand not i think with a possible svalutation until minimum hand(=14-16 points) it be inviteing and you must comunicate this force to your partner that has bidden once and had to make a second bidding (you have fear for king of club..). I think it needs to continue with a forcing 3♦, eventually to prepare to get five,bye.

[gwnn]

Lovera, the point (that has been made about four times in this thread) is that you are missing the ace of diamonds. That means that if partner lacks it, you will have to give away a tempo. Tempi are important in bridge, especially in notrump. Roughly speaking, we will need to stop all suits twice (or once+luck with the lead) if we miss the ace of diamonds. If we had the ace of diamonds, that requirement would only be a single stop (or no stop+luck with the lead).

[biggerclub]

I am no expert, but I am in the 2♦ camp. And again, concerned about no Aces. So give me just the A♣ instead of the K, and I am willing to go 3♦.