General agreement on this one?

[bid_em_up]

There isn't much sense in it being a weak bid (too high a level and into a possible misfit). I'd take that as a strong 55 with a random pard. Unless, of course, it were obvious from my hand it couldn't be that :D

Give me a hand where you can see that partner can't be strong with 5-5?

Hum.. 17-18 hcp with 1534 and strong diamonds? Say

 

x

AKxxx

AKQ

Qxxx

I suspect you mean AKxxx x AKQ Qxxx (partner opened 1♥, you bid 1♠ & 3♦).

 

But seriously, if you have this hand, you would/should bid 2♦ as 4th suit forcing, which kinda removes it from any discussion.

 

Got another example?

No, this was an example of a hand where you would supposedly "know" that partner doesn't have a GF 5-5 ♠+♦ hand.

 

I'm not sure why partner can't have something along the lines of

 

AKJxx

x

J109xx

Ax

 

though.

 

Andy

The point was that in the given auction responder cannot hold the hand you initially gave. It is responder who bid 1♠ and 3♦. Therefore you couldnt hold x AKxxx AKQ Qxxx (you are describing openers hand).

 

In a Walsh style, a 4 card spade suit would be bid before a 5+ card minor suit. With game forcing values, any 5-5 hand would next bid 2♦ (4SF) thereby creating a forcing auction and then describe from there.

 

The auction listed, 1H-1S-2C-3D, to the best of my recollection is, specifically reserved for 4-6+ hands w/o game forcing values.