[dburn]

Scoring: IMP

---

You, South, open 1♠ and partner bids 2♦, game-forcing. What call do you make?

[y66]

3D

[mohitz]

I guess this depends on agreements. In my agreements, 2♦ delivered a 5 card suit. I bid 3♦ showing extras and at least 3 card support.

If i had one more diamond instead of club, I would have bid 3♥.

[awm]

2♠; for me 2♦ is usually (but not always) five, but a direct raise shows four-card support in any case. If partner bids 2NT next then I'll try 3♦ which should describe my degree of fit nicely.

[cherdanno]

I understand 3D and I understand 3C, planning to bid diamonds next. I don't understand 2S.

[dburn]

mohitz, on Apr 29 2010, 10:10 PM, said:

I guess this depends on agreements. In my agreements, 2♦ delivered a 5 card suit.

Oh, we didn't have much in the way of sophistication. For example, with:

♠xx ♥AQxx ♦AKJx ♣xxx

we would respond 2♦ to 1♠. I don't know what you would do, but it seems to me that you must have to perform some contortions if 2♦ "delivered a 5 card suit".

[mike777]

dburn, on Apr 29 2010, 09:23 PM, said:

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> South </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> Both </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> AKJ53 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> J </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> Q96 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> AJ43 </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->
You, South, open 1♠ and partner bids 2♦, game-forcing. What call do you make?

LOL


I just watched this movie the other night..... a truly great movie........I think 1951...so


I can tell you 3d (not extras)

yes 2d can be 4 but if you saw the movie you will think this version very unlikely....





=================



pard will assume we have 11-13 with 3 or 4d.......


our problems are only starting.....

dreaded inbetween hand.....tough...

[aguahombre]

3D is just fine, in our sys. 3C if 2D could not be five of them. 2S doesn't work for me, when I could high reverse 3C in a 2/1 style, so that would be far behind the other calls

The hand dburn gives is one of the many reasons we don't play J2N.

[jillybean]

Easy 3♦ , in my system 2♦ promises 5

On this hand ♠xx ♥AQxx ♦AKJx ♣xxx we would bid 2♣* gf, could be as short as 2

[dburn]

cherdanno, on Apr 29 2010, 10:31 PM, said:

I understand 3D and I understand 3C, planning to bid diamonds next. I don't understand 2S.

Not sure I understand it either - certainly didn't consider bidding it. A question that became relevant in the later going was this: suppose you have

♠AKJxx ♥x ♦Qx ♣QJ10xx

After 1♠-2♦, should you bid 2♠ or 3♣?

Addendum: let me rephrase that, since I cannot bear the smartass answer "yes, you should bid 2♠ or 3♣." Which of 2♠ and 3♣ should you bid?

[MarkDean]

I would bid 3♣. If partner bids anything but 3NT, I will bid 4♦ and think I am well placed. If partner bids 3NT...well, let's hope partner does not do that to me.

[dburn]

MarkDean, on Apr 29 2010, 10:58 PM, said:

I would bid 3♣.  If partner bids anything but 3NT, I will bid 4♦ and think I am well placed.  If partner bids 3NT...well, let's hope partner does not do that to me.

Very well. Partner bids 3♥, and you bid a "well-placed" 4♦. This was the sequence actually followed at the table, but I was not feeling quite as smug about it as I might have done. For example, might I not bid the same way with:

♠AKxxx ♥xx ♦Qx ♣AKxx?

[MarkDean]

dburn, on Apr 29 2010, 09:10 PM, said:

MarkDean, on Apr 29 2010, 10:58 PM, said:

I would bid 3♣.  If partner bids anything but 3NT, I will bid 4♦ and think I am well placed.  If partner bids 3NT...well, let's hope partner does not do that to me.

Very well. Partner bids 3♥, and you bid a "well-placed" 4♦. This was the sequence actually followed at the table, but I was not feeling quite as smug about it as I might have done. For example, might I not bid the same way with:

♠AKxxx ♥xx ♦Qx ♣AKxx?

I would tend to bid 3♠ with that hand, but it is true, you will not always have as pure of a hand for 4♦. However, I do not see that as a reason not to bid it when I do have the hand in the OP.

[aguahombre]

MarkDean, on Apr 29 2010, 10:25 PM, said:

dburn, on Apr 29 2010, 09:10 PM, said:

MarkDean, on Apr 29 2010, 10:58 PM, said:

I would bid 3♣.  If partner bids anything but 3NT, I will bid 4♦ and think I am well placed.  If partner bids 3NT...well, let's hope partner does not do that to me.

Very well. Partner bids 3♥, and you bid a "well-placed" 4♦. This was the sequence actually followed at the table, but I was not feeling quite as smug about it as I might have done. For example, might I not bid the same way with:

♠AKxxx ♥xx ♦Qx ♣AKxx?

I would tend to bid 3♠ with that hand, but it is true, you will not always have as pure of a hand for 4♦. However, I do not see that as a reason not to bid it when I do have the hand in the OP.

3NT on that sequence.

[mike777]

again I got an ugly inbetween hand:



4c


1s=2d
3d=3h
4c


4c should/may alert pard I got more than 11-13......


2d is not crap....3d can be...and pard assumes.
roshomon.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

my p would bid 3D, I prefer 3C.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mike777]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 30 2010, 12:12 AM, said:

Hi,

my p would bid 3D, I prefer 3C.

With kind regards
Marlowe

what your pard prefers does not matter....



see the movie....roshomon..........that is not the issue...sigh
\what you prefer ...does......

[bluecalm]

Quote

Oh, we didn't have much in the way of sophistication. For example, with:

♠xx ♥AQxx ♦AKJx ♣xxx

we would respond 2♦ to 1♠. I don't know what you would do, but it seems to me that you must have to perform some contortions if 2♦ "delivered a 5 card suit".

2♣ for me (because it contains balanced gf hand by agreement). Actually I consider 2♦ just a bad bid/system design.
You will have a chance to play in ♦ if partner have 4 of them anyway and there is no reason to design system in such a way that you tell opponents what you have without much benefits for your side.

In hand in question I bid 3♦ which I hope promises extras. If it doesn't promise extras I guess I will go with 3♣.

[mike777]

bluecalm, on Apr 30 2010, 02:22 AM, said:

Quote

Oh, we didn't have much in the way of sophistication. For example, with:

♠xx ♥AQxx ♦AKJx ♣xxx

we would respond 2♦ to 1♠. I don't know what you would do, but it seems to me that you must have to perform some contortions if 2♦ "delivered a 5 card suit".

2♣ for me (because it contains balanced gf hand by agreement). Actually I consider 2♦ just a bad bid/system design.
You will have a chance to play in ♦ if partner have 4 of them anyway and there is no reason to design system in such a way that you tell opponents what you have without much benefits for your side.

2c?



no wonder forums confuse me..

[peachy]

3C. Hand is strong enough for this. In my methods which do not include artificial 2C or other gadgets (assumedly OP would have said if they had such methods, so they don't either), 2D does not promise five card suit so raising diamonds with only 3-card support is premature.