m1cha

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. If you suggest using 1NT - 2NT for 5+m-5+m weak, I would think 1NT - 3♣ can do quite the same job, and the bid is free. If you suggest using 1NT - 2♠ for 5+m-5+m, I would think you have a point because opener has to bid, so the sequence can be used for 5+m-5+m of any strength, if you like, though this may not be the standard. But then the same can be achieved in different ways also. One possibility is 1NT - 3♣ = 5+m-5+m weak and 1NT - 2♠ (transfer) - 2NT (or 3♣) - 3♦ = 5+m-5+m forcing. Another variant I used to play is the artificial sequence 1NT - 2♦ (transfer) - 2♥ - 2♠ = 5+m-5+m any strength. In that case for 5+M-5+M we bid 1NT - 3♦ if invitational or GF without slam interest.

[a] I may be mistaken but I think it was someone from this forum who reminded me some while ago (correctly) that people from the upgrade department should also know the downgrade department. In this sense, I find - three aces: very good, - a queen: not so good, - 4333 distribution: not good at all, - no honors in the longest suit: not good either. To me this looks like a perfect 1NT opener particularly if the alternative includes the possibility of playing 1♣ in a 3-1 fit. The 3♠ rebid in GIB is labeled "splinter, 9+ HCP". I have always considered this an attempt to find the best game contract. If this is the agreement, West, by bidding 3NT, answered a question and is not to blame. Although of course I agree that the West hand has meanwhile become pretty strong. [c] Hereby I join the league of those finding the methods to blame. Or, to be precise, the partnership to blame for not having better methods. Short-term partnerships excluded, of course. Anyway, what I suggest and what I play in one of my regular partnerships is: 1NT - 2♠ = transfer to 3♣, 2NT is "superaccept" with fit and good values. 1NT - 2NT = transfer to 3♦, 3♣ is "superaccept" with fit and good values. 1NT - 3♣ = 5-5(+) in the minors, pass or correct. If you do this, you can still play the transfers with weak hands; while in a slam-going case like here East gets enough information to continue with 4♦ Minorwood or whatever you prefer. The downside of this approach is that 1NT - 2NT is not available for invitational hands a without 4-card major but actually this does not appear to be a downside at all. At least we were told in a different BBO forum some other while ago by someone with a simulation-backed study (sorry, I just don't recall the details) that pass-or-blast is superior to an invitation opposite a 1NT range of no more than 3.4, iirc. The upside of pass-or-blast is in avoiding 2NT-1.

Sounds like Multi-Landy to me in which case the double shows any 6+-card minor suit. Partner has to bid 2♣ for pass-or-correct. (Furthere meanings may be assigned by partnership agreement.)

Funny. This looks so much more like opener forgot your convention and has a Weak Two in ♥. ;) Anyway, so each side has at least a 10-card fit, and HCPs are more or less evenly distributed. According to the Law of Total Tricks this means we are likely to make 4♣, they are likely to make 4♦, give or take a trick for each side (sometimes two). The bad news is, they have the higher-ranking suit. The good news is, they don't know what I know. How can we make the most of this? I feel at MPs I should bid 5♣. I don't think they will double this and even if they do and I go down for -100 while they can get +130, it's still good for us. If they bid 5♦, I double. Down one doubled is +200 which could be a top score for us even if some on our side are allowed to play 4♣ or below. If 5♦X makes, next deal please. At IMPs I find it much more difficult because I don't like the risk of driving them into 5♦ if it makes while everyone else plays 3♦+2, it seems too costly here. I guess I bid 4♣ hoping that 4♦ is the final contract. If that just makes, not much is going to happen; while if they make 9 tricks or 11, it can even be good for us. With vulnerabilities reversed and a slightly weaker hand, I would consider passing to let them sort out where they think they belong in a situation they find hard to evaluate correctly. By the way, I strongly feel that opener should not bid again in situations like these. After opener strictly described the hand, partner may raise to any level for very different reasons with very different hands, so any rebid from opener is completely in the dark.

Replace ♥Q by ♥K (or ♥A), and you have a minimum hand for bidding 4♠ on the beginner level, that is, on the level where you bid game as soon as you found a fit and found out you are strong enough for game. But your hand is a sound invitation, so on this level you should bid 3♠. More experienced players reserve the direct raises for preemptive bids. Imagine you hold ♠ Q8632 ♥ 9854 ♦ K64 ♣7 and you bid 4♠ in order to make it as difficult as possible for opponents to explore if bidding 5♣ is good for them. For this reason people here refused to call your bid "aggressive" ;) . The message to partner with these preemptive bids is: "Don't try to explore slam!" So if a direct raise is preemptive, there must be a different way to bid strong hands with a good fit, and that is an overcall in opponents' suit, here 3♣. What you should consider with your hand (and this applies to many different situations also): - You have the majority of points. - You have a fit in the highest-ranking suit. - You're in preferable vulnerability. These are three good reasons to bid slowly. And while I guess you will finally end up in 4♠ with your hand 70 or 80 % of the time, the profit of bidding slowly is that you don't usually want to give up the chance of finding a better contract in the other 20 or 30 % of the time. If you jump to 4♠ in the first round, you will not get there. With your particular distribution you can also double to show a 4-card heart suit instead of showing your fit. Is that a good idea? Well, with sufficient values for game you can pretty much do what you want: Double in the first round and jumping to 4♠ in the second round seems almost risk-free, would describe your hand pretty well, and in the meantime you hear if partner has anything helpful to tell you that might guide you towards a slam. But since your hand is weaker, your concern should be: Will you still be able to describe your main feature (a fit with invitational values) in the next round if you conceal it this round? Let's say the bidding goes 1♠ (2♣) X (pass) 2[any] (pass) _?_ 1♠ (2♣) X (3♣) pass (pass) _?_ 1♠ (2♣) X (3♣) 3[any] (pass) _?_ If you believe you will have descriptive bids partner will understand, double now. If you believe you would run into trouble, bid 3♣ now. If you are playing with beginners and you believe they will have trouble with your bid of 3♣, bid 3♠ now. Experts will tell you (or they already did) that there are occasions when you want to bid 4♠ with hands like yours in order to deceive the opponents. While this is true, the problem with this approach is that you are also deceiving your partner, and most partners don't appreciate that. So you better make sure when you do this kind of thing and it fails, that you can explain why this was one of those occasions where it should have worked. :)

Another reason not mentioned so far: In balancing position you may use an overcall to show any combination of two-suiters. This is not permitted in second seat because a call not showing a known suit after an opening of one of a suit constitutes a brown-sticker convention and would be banned in most tournaments. (Unfortunately I'm not sure if this is completely true in ACBL land.)

Thanks for your comment, it made me google. The law originates from the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge" by the WBF where it takes the form (in Law 40 B3): http://www.worldbridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/laws/2007lawscomplete.pdf This is quoted in the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge" by the ACBL in Law 40B3, and taken up in the Elections section #7 with the phrase "may not vary" (as quoted by ArtK78). http://www.acbl.org/acbl-content/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Laws-of-Duplicate-Bridge.pdf From what I have seen so far I assume this is taken over by most RAs including NZ as shown by Trick13 and Germany (Turnierordnung §11(1)5). http://www.bridge-verband.de/picture/doc/7 For the Scotish Bridge Union I found in the "Laws - for Directors": "Law 40B3: Prior agreements by a partnership to vary its understanding during the auction or play followingquestion asked, a response to a question or an irregularity committed by its own side is prohibited." http://www.bridgewebs.com/kelso/SBU_Application%20of%202007%20Laws%20for%20TDs%20Bk.pdf The EBU, in its Laws of Duplicate Bridge, copies the wording from the WBF, Law40B3, and specifies in its "White Book 2013, Technical Matters" (of which I can only hope it applies): http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/white-book/white-book-2013.pdf (This puts straight a point I found unclear in all the other documents namely that you should be allowed to vary your auction depending on the explanation given by the opponents about their bidding.) There is another document showing what this law is about and containing points I found quite interesting and unexpected: "MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EBU LAWS & ETHICS COMMITTEE HELD AT BAKER TILLY OFFICES, 2 BLOOMSBURY STREET, LONDON ON WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 1ST 2014" http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/minutes-and-reports/laws-and-ethics-committee/2014/01-october.pdf

For quite a while I tried in vain to figure out situations where this law would be useful and necessary. The contemplations about the meanings of "vary" and "change" finally led me on what I think is the right track. I now believe that the purpose of the law is to prevent situations such as these: a) W opens 2♠ weak two. N doubles. E bids 3♠, pre-emptive. b) W opens 2♠ weak two. N doubles. E asks what this means, hears the response and bids 3♠, now invitational! This is a variation of the understanding following a question, and in order to work it needs prior agreement (and it's not a change of the understanding, by the way). Similar: a) W opens 1NT, N bids 2♥ Cappelletti (two-suiter with ♥ and a minor). b) W opens 2NT, N bids 1♥, has himself corrected to 2♥ which is now natural! On the other hand we know the following is perfectly legal: W opens 1♣, N bids 1♠ or 2♠, E bids 2NT. Obviously the meaning of the 2NT bid may depend on the strength or distribution of the opponent's hand or, nonwithstandng these, on the level of the opponent's overcall; and the right to have different meanings of this bid depending on the situation is not removed by asking the opponents about the meaning of their bid. Now this is certainly "by prior agreement" but it is obviously not what the law means by "varying the understanding [...] following a question". In analogy to the paragraph before, if (W) 1NT, (N) 1♦ can become a legal bidding sequence after accepting the insufficient bid, there should not be unusual restrictions to assign meanings to the follow-up bids; no matter what you bid over two-level overcalls and no matter what you bid without interference, because those are different situations. (However, over (W) 1NT, (N) 1♥ corrected to 2♥ you may have to play the same as over (W) 1NT, (N) 2♥ at least in ACBL land and many other countries, though not in NZ as we have seen.) Unfortunately this is just my personal opinion and it is not binding to your next TD ;) . @Shugart23: My suggestions for 1-over-1NT, keep it simple and useful - 2-level and higher as if opponent had passed: Stayman and Jacoby for 5-cards suits, 2NT invitational if that's what you play. - 1 in a suit and double: bids and follow-up auction as if partner had opened 1♣, including negative double, so you can find a 4-4 fit in a major with a weak hand. - 1NT: for takeout, as you prefer: maybe a long minor (opener bids 2♣ to pass or correct - make sure this is valid in your country) or maybe both minors 4-4(+), opener selects. - pass: you want the opponents to play, you have any very weak hand or you hold their suit in an up-to-medium hand.

Partner has shown 12 - 15 points, I have 19 including a pretty fragile length point, no good fit. How do we evaluate the chances of a slam? Sure I may appreciate 4♣ for cue bidding, but will it solve my problem? The main two differences between your two hands are the overlap in ♣ and the ♥Q. Will I find that out? Traditionally I can bid 4NT to ask partner about the precise range but is this likely to solve the problem? Bridge is a matter of probabilities. I prefer to ask for aces and raise to slam based on the presence of the ace. Why? Because if the ace is missing I'm sure to concede a ♥ trick and I think I'm more than 50 % likely to concede another trick anywhere else with our few points. But when the ace is with partner, the suit will almost certainly hold. It will hardly ever be lead and if it is, partner is likely to have a double stop, so I can afford to concede a trick in another suit. And if I think I'm more than 50 % likely to concede two tricks in other suits, I shouldn't think of slam at all. In addition, that approach prevents bidding slam if partner holds ♥QJTxxx. Yes, that's how GIB plays it iirc. And yes, playing IMPs I do prefer 6♣ 5-3 or 6♦ 4-4 to 6NT if I have that fit and a distributional hand. That's okay but I feel I don't necessarily have to bid 4♣ for that. How about playing natural over 4NT? So if partner is interested in slam and has an unbid suit, they bid 5♣ or 5♦ and we find the fit and slam in a minor. @helene_t: Right, the rules must be clear and preferably simple. Actually that's why I want to play Gerber. Otherwise I'd be fine playing 4NT to ask for aces even for a NT contract whenever it doesn't make sense to play quantitative 4NT. But unfortunately there's no general agreement possible about what "makes sense" and what doesn't ;) . Whereas it is pretty simple to strictly define a set of situations for Gerber 4♣. While on the other hand again, there is obviously no agreement on the question if this set "makes sense" ;) . By the way, I never played 5♣ Gerber so far. But I used to play 4♦ as Gerber in a few selected situations (where 4♣ was defined differently).

Well, knowing the full hand now: N passes, you write +300 for a top. Blame the robot, not yourself ;) . 3♠-2 undoubled white for +100 is not sufficient because 4♣ makes for +130. Of course your double is better with the red suits reversed. And with the red suits reversed at N, if the robot won't pass, you will probably get your 4♣ bid because N knows you must be long in ♣ since you can't have more than one ♠ card. (Not sure though, the robots get this count right.) You were just unlucky.

I am aware your treatment is standard, so it must have a point, but unfortunately I don't understand this point. So could you or someone else please explain me what is wrong about 4♣ as Gerber in situations such as 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♦ - 3NT - 4♣ 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦ - 3NT - 4♣ 1♥ - 1♠ - 2NT* - 4♣** - * 18 - 19 HCP with 5-card ♥, no ♠ fit ** 3♣ would be natural and forcing to game 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣* - 2NT** - 4♣*** * 4th suit forcing, at least invitational ** ♣ stop, (semi-)balanced, 2 or less ♥ cards *** 3♣ would be natural and forcing to game (unless ... 1♥ ... 3♣ is) if I think we're strong enough for a slam based on points or tricks but I want to check if 2 aces are missing. Of course I can bid 4NT quantitative if I prefer.

It seems to be a kind of standard these days that 4NT is a quantitative invite if partner's last bid was NT (and Blackwood otherwise), and that 4♣ is Gerber only directly after a natural NT opening (1NT, 2NT) or it's equivalent (such as 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT). The reason for using Gerber here is not to keep the bidding low - which is not necessary as explained by helene_t - but because 4NT is not available. Consequently I sympathize with the position to play Gerber whenever 4NT is quantitative, that is, whenever partner's last bid was NT, though it appears to be non-standard and though I am not playing this myself when ♣ was bid naturally during the auction. Right, if I think of running from 3NT for some reason, 4♣ does not look like a winning contract in the long run. Rather pass, risk 5♣ or try to sign off in 3♣ earlier. But when ♣ was bid naturally and 6♣ is a possibility, I want to play 4♣ as a slam try for this suit (perhaps Optional Minorwood). I don't have a partner who would play Gerber with me in this situation. But as a working rule for the beginner level it seems good to me. Gerber over suit contracts should not be taught any more, it will be mistaken for splinter, for a cue bid or else by most others players in modern bridge. Once you start feeling Blackwood is no help in minor suit contracts, learn Minorwood or perhaps Kickback. By the way, some here mentioned that asking for aces is overrated, and I don't object. But I also suggest that some of these quantitative invites are also overrated if partner's point count is already restricted to a narrow range. When you have a good trick source such as a 6-card minor, you can make 13 tricks with a combined 31 HCP, so there are more important things to check than a single HCP above maximum in partner's hand. For example, just yesterday I had this bidding with a robot partner: 2♣ - 2NT - 3NT - 4NT - 6NT - - - The thing is, 3NT was labeled as exactly 22 HCP and 4NT was labeled as 12 HCP and a quantitative slam invite. So I looked at my hand wondering if I have a 22-point minimum or a 22-point maximum, found my nice 5-card ♣ suit and bid 6NT, going down 1, where Gerber or Blackwood would have shown the two missing aces :( . Though I believe if one of my regular partners bid 4♣ here, I would understand it as Stayman, not Gerber, but this is a pretty exceptional case.

As is, 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♠ - 3♥ - 4♠ - 4NT - 5♦ - 5♥ - [♠Q] - 6♠ - - - Reversed, 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♠ - 3♥ - 3♠ - 4♠ - - - Long-suit trial bids (3♥) are meant for evaluating the chances of a full game, but can just as well be used as a kind of low-level quantitative slam invite. With the reversed hand, S has a sure minimum hand and declines. With the first hand, S might accept with optimum ♥ support in spite of minimum count. By the way I think we shouldn't worry if we don't reach slam here. The slam is cold, of course, but take ♥Q and give ♣Q, or take ♣7 and give ♦7, and it fails.

I have become a friend of intervening after situation 1, but with this hand I wouldn't. I don't believe opponents have a 9-card fit. Because if they have and do not make an invitational move, my partner should have opening strength and bid something. The more likely scenario is, opponents have an 8-card fit, partner has 4 cards in their suit and didn't bid for this reason. So I pass and let opponents struggle. Take ♦x and give ♥x, so I bid 3♣. It may seem paradox but 2♥ now has a better chance of making. Take ♣x and give ♠x, so I may double, perhaps partner loves to pass. If partner bids 2♠, I can pass, and there's still a chance one of the opponents raises to 3♥.

According to the ACBL SAYC system booklet which you find here http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf on page 3, the 2♣ rebid after a 1♥/♠ opening extends to 18 points in Standard American. Same goes for BBO's GIB playing 2/1, for ACOL (at least according to my old books) and for the official national Bridge systems in European countries such as France and Germany. If you think that all these systems are 'seriously flawed', I don't want to be in your shoes having to defend this position. Though I will not be one of those who contradict you ;) . As some ways out, mgoetze in post #2 suggested Gazzilli or Precision.

When I started learning Bridge, it was with ACOL. Then you opened 4-card majors, and your second bid in a minor suit would make it 5 cards in the major. If you had 6-4, you planned to rebid the major again in the third round. After changing to opening 5-card majors not so long ago, I found there are two schools about bidding 6-4 hands (M+m). Some rebid the major immediately while others plan the ACOL style showing 5-4 first. I have followed the 5-4 school for quite a while for the reason that 54xx shows 9 cards of your hand while 6xxx only shows 6 cards, so bidding 5-4 describes your hand better. More recently I have come to doubt that last half-sentence. I see a number of reasons for bidding the 6-card major first. - If you show 5-4, your partner will assume you want to play a NT contract but with 6-4 you want to play your suit. So you are suggesting the wrong contract. - Partner will often have doubleton support because singletons and, particularly, voids are quite rare. - The probability of exactly 5-4 in the longest two suits is 24.75 %, 6-4 has 6.03 %, 6-3 has 9.09 %. That means even if you agree that the rebid in a minor can include a 6-4 hand, you partner will assume that you haven't got one because it is unlikely (1:6). So you are suggesting the wrong information. - Rebidding your major limits your strength within a more or less narrow limit, bidding a minor hardly does. This makes a rebid of the major actually quite a good - and particularly useful - description of the hand while - bidding the minor can create follow-up problems as we have seen in the contributions to this topic. That is to say, I agree with you but I haven't always followed that style.

Thanks masonbarge, that is great data! Just let me add some ideas though they are not that thoroughly backed. Firstly, one contract making and the other one not, that is certainly a worst-case scenario for the weaker contract. When both contracts fail, it's still strictly about the number of tricks but the benefit for the safer contract is less than above. When the hand is stronger and both contracts make (even if we are not talking about making a full game), the contract in a major will at some point get ahead because less tricks are needed to make the same score. The hand I posted had 2 points more than yours. That should add ~ 20 % probability of making the contract (or 1 additional trick in most cases). This will reduce the advantages you reported but I am pretty sure the conclusion is still the same.

Ah, good point. I should have mentioned this. In our system, unlike SAYC or 2/1, we don't open 1NT with 5-card majors.

Thanks for answering again. No, I wasn't thinking of passing a forcing 1NT bid. SAYC-style system with 1NT = 6 - 10 total points (kind of). Forum D, to be precise. Strange to hear from you, you don't play that :) .

Thanks a lot to all who have replied so far. Well then, this is the full board: [hv=pc=n&s=saj864hq9d943c943&w=st73hkj742dacak76&n=sk5hat85dj7652cqt&e=sq92h63dkqt8cj852&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1hp1np2cp2hppp]399|300[/hv] According to the official system description 3♣ shows 8 - 10 (11) points with 4 cards in ♣, so this is probably the system bid. With less points (that is, if you find a reason to downgrade the hand by half a point) you may pass. Alternatively, 2♥ shows 2 cards in ♥ at 6 - 10 (11) points, which sounds good so far, but it is a 'correction bid' suggesting no good fit in the ♣ suit. (There is no artificial 2♠ bid to show ♣ in this system.) Anyway, at the table I found a number of reasons for bidding 2♥: It shows the strength of the hand well while 3♣ or pass are borderline in strength; it "keeps the bidding open" while staying on the 2 level; and you want to play the majors in matchpoints. So I bid 2♥. The distribution is not nice for EW. Double dummy analysis shows that the following contracts can be made (with open cards): 1♥ from EW 1NT from EW 2♣ from EW 1♠ from NS So basically everything beyond 2♣ is down. In practice it's worse because the ♥ suit plays horribly, particularly after ♦7 lead, and it is difficult to restrict it to 2♥-1. Partner has a pretty strong 15 HCP hand, so if you bid 3♣ he may try to lift you in 3NT. Actually nobody in the room played the ♣ suit! But some scored positive at EW by letting NS play 2♠ which works for EW because opps have just a 7-card fit and few points. Only two out of 13 players won their contracts, W2♥= and S2♠= with some help from the respective opps. Anyway, after seeing this I thought I should rather pass 2♣, but certainly I am biased from the experience of this particular hand. Now this brings up my second top-level question: How about West pass the 1NT bid? I mean, clearly the system rebid is 2♣. We are supposed to show the 4-card suit and who knows, we may find a wonderful 6-4 fit. (Why not dream?) But on less wonderful days we may want to play NT anyway; and the 2♣ bid can create a lot of trouble, as we have seen, because it is so inspecific in strength. There is no fit in ♥ or ♠. The shape of the West hand is, well, just okay to me, so NT looks good. 1NT scores as much as 2♣ in MPs and 1NT+1 score more than 2♥= in a 5-2 fit or more than 3♣=. Finally, opps do not intervene over 1NT as easily as they do over 2♣. True, we may want to be in 3NT if partner has 10 HCP but there is no way to find out 'maximum of maximum' in our system. So, why not pass the non-forcing 1NT bid? If you don't, would you pass 1NT with ♣x instead of ♣Q? Would you pass 1NT in IMPs instead of MPs?

Maybe I'm mistaken, my impression from TrumpEcho's post was that 1♥ 1N 2♣ 2♥ can include 3-card, perhaps even 4-card support. Then the question would not be "why not" but "why", even though I find nothing wrong with it.

Well, I might appreciate that move by partner, who knows. Particularly if I am expected to be 100 % right with anything in Bridge. ;) Having the system bid against me can be nasty, I agree. On the other hand, I checked some statistics before starting this topic. The thing is, a random hand contains 16 - 18 HCP 7.28 % of the time. Assuming 17 - 19 total points, that's what opener can have to justify going for a full game opposite my hand. 11 - 13 HCP (12 - 14 total points) occur 23.44 % of the time. That's most of the hands where passing is the only chance to score positive. The percentages are low because I didn't bother to remove the hands below opening strength. But even if if you take this into account, the fact remains that the weak hands outweigh the strong ones in a relation of 3:1. And while in IMPs you may want to keep game open even if the frequency is against you, I'm pretty sure this will not pay off in MPs - asssuming 2♣ is what I can actually play. What bothers me more is that opponents may not let us play in 2♣. With 2 suits open on the 2 level, they may reopen the bidding and make 2♠ based on an 8-card or even 9-card fit. By bidding 2♥, removing their ♦ option, I may be keeping them out.

Good point! Was passing an option? Because with this distribution opposite a weak hand, 2♣ might make while 2♥ and 3♣ fail, giving the ♣ suit an edge. I see. With this hand it would work similar in 2/1. 1NT forcing, 2♣ rebid just promises 3 ♣s, so there is no reasonable alternative to 2♥. Just because I'm curious, in your system 1♥ - 2♥ is the real minimum support, or is it stronger than the way over 1NT?

@mgoetze: Thanks! Yes, it does bother me, and I found someone who is likely to try Gazzilli with me. :D @Mbodell: I see. I wondered what might happen to the poll if I edit it while some people have already voted, but it worked. :)

It depends on what you agreed with your partner. If you are the guys who play 2♥ as either weak or very strong, that's a perfect bid. Otherwise I'd rate the hand too strong for Michaels. I would double, and if partner bids ♣, change to ♠. This does not describe my hand well but will probably lead us to the right contract. Bidding ♠ and planning a ♦ rebid is the way to describe the shape but I doubt I will be able to describe the strength in that way.