[Fluffy]

Scoring: MP

S - N
1♦-1♥
2♣-2♥*
3♣-3♦
3♥-...

---

2♥*: sure this bid is debatable, if you can't live with it just put another card on the suit, and try to picture partner's hand

2♥*: An inmediate bid of 2♥ is very weak (2-7), so this should be constructive (good 7 at least)

I am more interested on what do you think partner has than what would you bid.

[hotShot]

If your partner plays some SAYC style, he has 4♦ and 6♣.
1246 seems a possible distribution. I partner would be strong enough to reverse he would have started with ♣. So I would expect 12-15 HCP.

[fred]

The sequence doesn't really make sense.

3C was non-forcing so partner could not have known you were going to bid 3D giving him a chance to bid 3H now.

So the only logical explanation for this sequence is that your 3D bid improved partner's hand enough to keep him bidding.

And that doesn't really make sense (to me at least).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[MickyB]

I suspect that pard just has a case of matchpoint-itis and wants to play in the 6-1 major fit.

[kenrexford]

This may be strange, but I'm guessing like everyone else.

If you happen to have a way to show a hand that otherwise would rebid 2C and then repeat 3C, perhaps some intermediate minor two-suiter, then perhaps 2♥ by you was a "demand" bid.

If so, then one might suggest that the 3♣ call was a game try, agreeing hearts. Maybe something like 1345 pattern, or 0355?

Your 3♦ would then have been interpreted as a further game try, 3♥ declining this.

Best guess I have.

[Winstonm]

If you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth - S. Holmes.

It is matchpoints
3C was non-forcing, therefore
3H cannot be an invite, therefore
3H must be choice of partscore, expected 6-1 heart or hoped for 5/3 minor.

Best guess: xx, A, AQ10xx, AJ10xx.

[han]

I don't have a clue what's going on here, so I think I'm going to agree with Winston and others. That was the friendly part of this post.

I don't think the argument "3C was NF therefore 3H can't be invitational" is valid. For example, 1D-1H-2C-2D-2NT is invitational (at any form of scoring including MPs), while 2C is NF.

[Fluffy]

Ok, Ok, I was slipping on this one, but I am happy at least 1 suggested the 2155 that didn't know where to play.

Double my fault since I didn't only make a cryptic bidding, I also undervalued an easy hand

♠A2-♥6-♦AJ1093♣AKJ105

I supose asking if ♥s are good enough to play on them opposite singleton is just impossible.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I don't think the argument "3C was NF therefore 3H can't be invitational" is valid. For example, 1D-1H-2C-2D-2NT is invitational (at any form of scoring including MPs), while 2C is NF.

Han, I'm going to have to beg to disagree here. There are substantial differences in these auctions.

Whereas 1D-1H-2C-2D-2N is invitational, it is the second bid that could be passed, i.e., 2C.

In the auction given, 1D-1H-2C-2H, it is now that opener must make some kind of invite - 2N, 3H, 2S would all show extra values and a move toward game. 3C could well end the auction, though, as responder with Jxx, KQxxxx, xx, Qx could easily pass - in essence, opener has made 2 non-forcing, non-invitaional bids - you are forced sometimes to make a non-forcing bid with extras, but the second time around you have to make up ground and show the extras.

I would take 3C in this auction to be a strong dislike for hearts, probably 2065 shape. With xx, A, AKxxx, AQxxx, it's better to bid 3H (or with agreement 2S).

So my point is you can certainly make one non-forcing bid and then invite, but it would be extremely odd to make two non-forcing bids and then still want to invite.

[Fluffy]

3♣ is certainly invitational in my agreements, playing in a higher level on a suit that scores worse cannot be a good idea

[jdonn]

This auction is inconsistent. Partner made a bid that, though it shows extra values, is nonforcing and puts his hand in a narrow range, and then you chose a contract. I don't think he can ever be in a position to bid again over 3♦ with a hand that couldn't raise hearts last round. He was free to bid 3♥ over 2♥ if he wanted.

Doesn't the principle of captaincy apply here? Partner has described his hand very accurately in terms of both strength and distribution (5-5 in the minors, maximum for not being able to jump shift, unable to raise hearts) so it is up to you to place the contract, and you have done so.

[dake50]

Does partner imagine your hand SKxx HKQJxxx DQxx Cx and see 4H making?

[han]

Winstonm, on Feb 20 2007, 09:43 PM, said:

Quote

I don't think the argument "3C was NF therefore 3H can't be invitational" is valid. For example, 1D-1H-2C-2D-2NT is invitational (at any form of scoring including MPs), while 2C is NF.

Han, I'm going to have to beg to disagree here. There are substantial differences in these auctions.

Whereas 1D-1H-2C-2D-2N is invitational, it is the second bid that could be passed, i.e., 2C.

In the auction given, 1D-1H-2C-2H, it is now that opener must make some kind of invite - 2N, 3H, 2S would all show extra values and a move toward game. 3C could well end the auction, though, as responder with Jxx, KQxxxx, xx, Qx could easily pass - in essence, opener has made 2 non-forcing, non-invitaional bids - you are forced sometimes to make a non-forcing bid with extras, but the second time around you have to make up ground and show the extras.

I would take 3C in this auction to be a strong dislike for hearts, probably 2065 shape. With xx, A, AKxxx, AQxxx, it's better to bid 3H (or with agreement 2S).

So my point is you can certainly make one non-forcing bid and then invite, but it would be extremely odd to make two non-forcing bids and then still want to invite.

Have a look at this Winston:

http://dictionary.re...rowse/therefore