[paulg]

Expert partner does this to you playing 2/1:

1♦ 1♥
2♣ 2♠ (4th suit, game forcing)
3♥ 5♦

What do you think the 5♦ bid is?

Paul

[aguahombre]

I guess partner is tired of torturing you and is placing the contract. 4D would have continued the pain. Remember you limited your hand with the 2c rebid and then continued to show nothing extra by bidding 3H. You are probably 1 3 5 4 with nothing particular extra. Partner heard all this, and broke the force. If you happen to have an unexpected 17 count with excellent controls, I guess you can proceed past 5D.

[Hanoi5]

As I see it the 4th-suit-forcinger wanted to either:

a. Show 5 hearts with at least F.G. values, or
b. Find out whether opener had any extra lenght in any of his/her suits, or
c. Find out about the spade stopper which he/she was missing.
d. Support one of opener's minors looking for a slam.

I think 4♦ would have been support with slam ideas and probably so would have 4♣. Then 5♦ should be some kind of slam query for hearts, like exclusion KC. But I'm just guessing.

[shyams]

Here's a non-expert opinion:

I think partner has 5-4 or 5-5 in red suits and his 5♦ bid is to figure out if you hold 1-3-5-4 or 2-2-5-4.

While your bidding suggests you hold a 1-3-5-4, you may occasionally be forced to bid 3♥ with ♠xx ♥Hx ♦HHxxx ♣Hxxx (approx).

If partner held 5 card ♥ and a strong hand, he is unlikely to bid 2♦ Inv. minor even with a 4 or 5 card fit for your opening suit. That's why I would assume this as a bid to discover your exact shape. With 1-3 in majors, I'd pass 5♦ or correct to 5♥. With 0-4 (or singleton ♠A), I'd bid 5♠ and with 2-2, I'd pass 5♦.

[hatchett]

Are you playing a style where partner raises directly with a 1354 minimum? If so, partner's mostly likely shape is 2254 with stronger 1354 bidding 4♥ over 2♠.
I can't really think of a hand that bids 4th suit and then jumps to 5D over 2♥ when partner might have a 2254 17/18 count, so it should probably be artificial but it is rather torturing partner unless you've explicitly agreed what it is.

[helene_t]

Obviously natural, either a picture bid or fast arrival=minimum depending on agreement.

Opener could still have 17 points and could still have a slammish hand opposite a diamond fit so I think he is allowed to bid 6.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

If I have to play 5D, I want to be sure, that 6D has no play at all.
Hence I cant construct a lot of hands, which would want to bid 5D
direct, more precise: I would always bid 4D instead of 5D.
=> 5D cant be to play, but it cant also be agreeing fit.
This is at least my personal style.

If you play Exclusion Blackwood / Voidwood, than I guess 5D is
Exclusion Blackwood.

As it is p, does not have an easy way to set hearts in a forcing manner
as trumps after the 3H bid showed 3 card support, both 3NT and 4H
would be to play, 5H would set the suit, but would be NF.
3S would be asking for a half stopper, 4S would be a splinter, so I think
that 5D is setting hearts, and should show 1st round control,
..., most likely a void.
This reasoning would also apply for a 5C bid instead of a 5d bid.

Of course an important point to consider is, hwo often opener would
raise responders majors with only 3 card support and 5431 shape,

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Codo]

What can it be?

Natural? After I showed a (~1354) he has spade shortage and prefers 5 diamond to 3 NT.

Exclusion? There is no way to bid exclusion afterwards- so it is now or never.

I think the first hand type is more common, so without prior agreement I would play 5 Diamond as to play.

But with my standard partner I have good continuations after 4SF, so with him this surely would be exclusion because the hand which does simply wants to play 5 Diamond bids different.

[paulg]

Just to add that you could expect partner to raise hearts, rather than bid 2♣, with most minimum 1354 hands.

[billw55]

Well, how is partner supposed to bid with a routine hand like xx AQxx KJxx Kxx or similar? Opener has clearly shown a max of one spade and usually five diamonds. So I think 5♦ is to play.

[gnasher]

It depends upon what opener's 3♥ means, and what he'd have done with a 2254 without a spade stop. I know of three distinct styles:

- 3♥ might be either 2254 without a spade stop or 1354 with extras.

- 3♠ shows the 2254, and 3♥ shows 1354 with extras.

- 3♦ includes the 2254, and 3♥ shows 1354 with extras.

In the first style, 5♦ shows a minimum game force and is to play opposite the 2254, eg xxx KQxx AQxx Qx. With a good 1354, opener may raise himself to slam, knowing that there's no wastage in the spade suit.

If 3♥ promises 1354 with extras, and assuming that you play fast arrival, it's hard to imagine a hand that would bid 5♦. Maybe something like Kxx Qxxx AQJx Jx?

[pooltuna]

cardsharp, on Nov 12 2009, 03:49 AM, said:

Expert partner does this to you playing 2/1:

1♦ 1♥
2♣ 2♠ (4th suit, game forcing)
3♥ 5♦

What do you think the 5♦ bid is?

Paul

[translation of 5♦ into English (well, American)] I am afraid of not having a ♠ stopper (or enough of same) and I want to be game since you are 1354 or (in my case maybe) 1345

[aguahombre]

Yep. Including the part about the different languages. Not everyone is in a big hurry to raise a major suit response immediately with those distributions. It may be stylish, but not our style.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Nov 12 2009, 09:16 AM, said:

It depends upon what opener's 3♥ means, and what he'd have done with a 2254 without a spade stop.  I know of three distinct styles:

- 3♥ might be either 2254 without a spade stop or 1354 with extras.

- 3♠ shows the 2254, and 3♥ shows 1354 with extras.

- 3♦ includes the 2254, and 3♥ shows 1354 with extras.

I prefer to bid 3♣ with 2254 and no spade stopper if my hearts are xx (3♥ with an honor). I find it a little odd that the style you haven't heard of involves the cheapest suit bid for the ambiguous hand type, that seems like the obvious place to put it to me.

To the question, I would never bid 5♦ here and I've never wanted to. But if partner does it, and it's not natural, we will have problems. If I'm guessing it's a picture bid, but only 4 hearts since with 5 he wouldn't bypass a 4♥ contract. So something like xx AKxx KQJxx xx.

[ONEferBRID]

cardsharp, on Nov 12 2009, 03:49 AM, said:

Expert partner does this to you playing 2/1:

1♦ 1♥
2♣ 2♠ (4th suit, game forcing)
3♥ 5♦

What do you think the 5♦ bid is?

Paul

If 2S! is 4th suit game force, there is no need for a 5D-jump to show Diam "to play".
If Partner just wanted to play in 5D, he could have bid it over 2C.

He obviously wanted more info. 3H showed 3 card support AND sets trump.
4D next would have been either a cuebid and/or a double-fit support bid.
Since 4D would be forcing (in a GF auction ), then 5D, as a jump-over-a-forcing bid shows shortness-- and I would think this 5-level jump would be Voidwood ( Exclusion) for Hts as trump.

[jdonn]

ONEferBRID, on Nov 12 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Nov 12 2009, 03:49 AM, said:

Expert partner does this to you playing 2/1:

1♦ 1♥
2♣ 2♠ (4th suit, game forcing)
3♥ 5♦

What do you think the 5♦ bid is?

Paul

If 2S! is 4th suit game force, there is no need for a 5D-jump to show Diam "to play".
If Partner just wanted to play in 5D, he could have bid it over 2C.

He obviously wanted more info. 3H showed 3 card support AND sets trump.
4D next would have been either a cuebid and/or a double-fit support bid.
Since 4D would be forcing (in a GF auction ), then 5D, as a jump-over-a-forcing bid shows shortness-- and I would think this 5-level jump would be Voidwood ( Exclusion) for Hts as trump.

Even if 3♥ shows 3 how can it possible set trumps? What does poor responder do when he is 2461 or something?

[aguahombre]

ONEferBRID, on Nov 12 2009, 09:59 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Nov 12 2009, 03:49 AM, said:

Expert partner does this to you playing 2/1:

1♦ 1♥
2♣ 2♠ (4th suit, game forcing)
3♥ 5♦

What do you think the 5♦ bid is?

Paul

If 2S! is 4th suit game force, there is no need for a 5D-jump to show Diam "to play".
If Partner just wanted to play in 5D, he could have bid it over 2C.

He obviously wanted more info. 3H showed 3 card support AND sets trump.
4D next would have been either a cuebid and/or a double-fit support bid.
Since 4D would be forcing (in a GF auction ), then 5D, as a jump-over-a-forcing bid shows shortness-- and I would think this 5-level jump would be Voidwood ( Exclusion) for Hts as trump.

not true. 3NT was still a possibility until pard found out you were probably 1 3 (54).

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Nov 12 2009, 05:10 PM, said:

I find it a little odd that the style you haven't heard of involves the cheapest suit bid for the ambiguous hand type, that seems like the obvious place to put it to me.

I have heard of this method. In fact, I play it in one of my serious partnerships, and have just found a nine-year old thread from rec.games.bridge where I recommended it.

However, I believe that this is something you'd need to have a specific agreement to play, whereas the other three are all methods that would be assumed to be normal in some parts of the world.

[gnasher]

gnasher, on Nov 12 2009, 06:47 PM, said:

I have heard of this method. In fact, I play it in one of my serious partnerships

On second thoughts, maybe I haven't heard of it. In the method I sometimes play, 3♣ is 2254 and 3♠ shows a natural 3♣ bid.

Are you saying that people play 3♣ as two-way, either 2254 or natural? If so, that is new to me.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Nov 12 2009, 01:03 PM, said:

gnasher, on Nov 12 2009, 06:47 PM, said:

I have heard of this method.  In fact, I play it in one of my serious partnerships

On second thoughts, maybe I haven't heard of it. In the method I sometimes play, 3♣ is 2254 and 3♠ shows a natural 3♣ bid.

Are you saying that people play 3♣ as two-way, either 2254 or natural? If so, that is new to me.

It seems the natural (not meaning that word in a literal bridge sense) way to play to me. It leaves the most space such as if partner wants to support diamonds, and it only lies about an extra card in a minor.

If comparing to bidding 3♦ on 2254 bidding 3♣ seems clearly superior to me, since you don't force partner to bypass 3NT to show diamond support. Actually it's bidding 3♦ that I have never heard of. I have never actually comes across 3♠ showing that hand either IRL but I've come to learn over time that is how you and probably much/most of Britain would play it.