Uncomfortable high-level misfit auction

[bid_em_up]

To address the original question. I think the 2S call should show at least 6 (not just 5 as some seem to believe). Opener has already shown at least 9 cards in diamonds and hearts, and since you are looking at a diamond void, he is very likely to hold at least 6+ diamonds. Even if he only has 9 cards, the odds are against him holding at least three spades so every effort should be made to pick one of openers two suits whenever you can. Therefore, you must hold 6 spades.

 

Given that, it is the 3S call that I find the least desirable here. Partner cannot hold any sort of fit for spades. On the actual auction, I still see no reason why partner cant (and shouldnt) be 0-4-5-4, and bid 4C over 3C. Having failed to do that, the cheapest available game now is 4H and thats what I do.

[kfgauss]

The ONLY time opener should consider a reverse into a 3 card ♥ suit is with 3 card ♠ support: he has to have a place to go if he is raised. Thus after the 2♠ 3♣ sequence, you KNOW that he lacks 3♠ and thus he 100% has 4♥.

I don't actually agree with this. What about:

 

Ax AKx AQJxxxx x

 

and many other similar hands (make the hand slightly better if you're comfortable bidding 3D on this).

 

I'll note that I think this hand bids 2H and follows that up with 3C.

 

Andy

[mike777]

The ONLY time opener should consider a reverse into a 3 card ♥ suit is with 3 card ♠ support: he has to have a place to go if he is raised. Thus after the 2♠ 3♣ sequence, you KNOW that he lacks 3♠ and thus he 100% has 4♥.

I don't actually agree with this. What about:

 

Ax AKx AQJxxxx x

 

and many other similar hands (make the hand slightly better if you're comfortable bidding 3D on this).

 

I'll note that I think this hand bids 2H and follows that up with 3C.

 

Andy

Again you are forcing to game across from:

KT9xx..xxx....void...JT9xx ? or other similiar hands?

Kxxxx,,,Jxx....void.....Jxxxx

[mikeh]

The ONLY time opener should consider a reverse into a 3 card ♥ suit is with 3 card ♠ support: he has to have a place to go if he is raised. Thus after the 2♠ 3♣ sequence, you KNOW that he lacks 3♠ and thus he 100% has 4♥.

I don't actually agree with this. What about:

 

Ax AKx AQJxxxx x

 

and many other similar hands (make the hand slightly better if you're comfortable bidding 3D on this).

 

I'll note that I think this hand bids 2H and follows that up with 3C.

 

Andy

Ok, I admit that 'only' was an overbid.

 

In fact, a more accurate statement of the thought I was trying to express is:

 

'Opener will either hold 4♥ or have a hand with which, if ♥ are ever raised, he intends to prefer back to ♠'.

 

Thus on your example hand, I would rebid 3♦ over 2♠, non-forcing (my reverses without a fit are strong but not gf). If my hand were stronger or if I were feeling particularly optimistic, so that I had to make that horrible (because so devoid of useful info) 3♣ force (I am not objecting to the use of the bid in this fashion, merely observing that it is impefect), then I would bid 3♠ over 3♥.

 

Yes, this may mean playing in a 5-2, but so what? If neither opener nor responder can bid 3N (and responder can always try 3N over 3♠ with the right hand), we are not missing a playable 3N. If responder cannot raise or give preference to ♦, we are not missing a good ♦ game/slam.

 

So I repeat my choice of 3♥ for all the same reasons I expressed earlier, subject only to the modification of principle described here.