1
. I have no qualms about opening 2N with this
distribution (e.g.,
Kx
QJx
AKQxxx
Kx) [Another 18-count!
...K&R = 19.5
--Jeff] but this hand is too rich in tricks
and controls for 2N. I would open 1
and jump to 3
. I do
not like opening 1
and jumping to 3N since that is too
much emphasis on just the diamond suit (e.g.,
Ax
Kx
AKQxxxx
xx).
Regarding the 3
bid, I would make it playing standard
but I like to play that 1
-1M, 3
is artificial showing
a strong jump shift with a)
+
or b) 6331 or 7330 with
shortness in a major* or c) diamonds, no stiff and controls
(this hand). Over 3
, responder describes his hand with lots
of major-suit distribution and otherwise relays with 3
to
find out about openers hand. Opener rebids 3
with shortness
in a major, 3
with clubs and 3N with this hand. Over 3
,
responder bids 3
to ask opener to bid 3N with shortness in
reponder's major.
* with shortness in clubs, opener rebids 2
over a 1
reponse
or 2
over a 1
reponse
I think Mike hit it on the nose.
I'd open 1
and rebid 3
if the game were IMPs, but at matchpoints,
I'll give up some of the chances for a diamond slam in exchange
for being sure to have my hand be declarer and maybe reaching
a thin 3NT without divulging anything before the opening lead.
Most of the field opened 1
and rebid 2NT, playing there.
The 1
...3
underbids are very bad, I think, not so much because
they are big underbids (not awful at matchpoints if you don't
have anything good to do) but because if partner passes, you're
playing in a minor, almost certain to be a bad score at MPs when
notrump is playable.
Does Cole 2
solve this problem? A K/S forcing 3
rebid does, I guess.
Ed's methods are interesting, but I'm not sure I want to remember
artificial methods that will come up so rarely. If they were
similar to methods over 1
-1NT; 3
and 1M-1NT; 3
, then I'd be
more interested in a full set of such structures, I suppose.