What is your next call, and what is your plan?

[bid_em_up]

[hv=s=sk7432hkq9xxdq63c]133|100|[/hv]

 

Partner opens 1D, and rebids 2D over your 1S bid. Opps are silent.

 

How do you proceed?

[kenrexford]

3♥, showing 5-5 and GF. But, 3♥ might not be GF for some.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

depending on system either 2H (my vote, as long as it

is forcing and natural) or 3H.

I will treat this hand as an inv. with 5-5 in the mayors.

If you open pretty sound, you can of course force to game,

but 5D is a long way to go.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[skjaeran]

2♥, natural F1. Planning to GF this, even vs a light opener. But prefer to go slowly.

[kenrexford]

2♥, natural F1. Planning to GF this, even vs a light opener. But prefer to go slowly.

I am somewhat surprised that you take this option of going slowly and then GF.

 

This suggests to me that a direct 3♥ by you would also be 5-5 and GF. I cannot imagine that you have two ways to show the exact same hand -- that would be rather redundant and unlike you.

 

So, I'll assume that a route showing GF with hearts and spades through 2♥ is different than a simple 5-5 and GF. What is that difference for you, when you do have specifically 5-5?

 

The difference cannot be pattern, because of the obvious -- you do have 5-5.

 

Is the difference the void? Is 3♥, when specifically 5-5, limited to 5521/5512 hands?

 

Or, is the difference some range issue? That would seem odd, as I would imagine that the precise one-timer bid would normally be expected to show bare GF to moderate GF, the F-ing around approach reserved for the very stronger hands.

 

I could not possibly use that approach, because aything but 3♥ with 5-5 would be either not GF or not 5-5, or perhaps some mega-huge take over hand, but I sure ain't got that.

[mikeh]

This sequence, as with the sequence 1♣ 1 major 2♣ is a difficult area in standard bidding, and I expect that most serious partnerships have methods for both.. thus it is common, in the 1♣ 2♣ sequence to use 2♦ as artificial, F1 or better.

 

In a similar vein, I have used 2♥ in the OP sequence as artificial, forcing. This requires some further agreements to untangle various hand types.

 

But absent specialized agreements.... I just sat down with a player I knew to be expert and generally familiar with 'standard' bidding by NA standards (I don't know enough about other standards to be comfortable guessing what bids mean).. I'd assume that 2♥ was to be understood as natural, but that opener won't be blasting to 4♥ just in case. I wouldn't have any clue whether he'd take 3♥ as forcing or nf.. I like it as forcing 5-5 but that's because I have that agreement in place in my partnerships, not because I think it is standard.

 

So I will bid 2♥.... in fact I would bid 2♥ even if I felt that 3♥ would be understood as intended... I intend to gf this hand.

 

Why? Because partner's 2♦ promises either 6+ diamonds or 4 hearts.. In either case, my hand is much, much stronger than an invitational bid.

 

At the same time, it isn't strong enough to bid 3♥ and pull 3N to 4♦.. yes, that would be a wonderful description of shape, but far too strong a slam try. Plus, after 3♥ - 3♠, is it clear that 4♦ is an attempt to set trump as opposed to a cue, such as AKJ10x KQxxx Ax x? If you don't like that example, I am sure you can come up with a hand on which a cue might make sense.

[Hanoi5]

If I don't find a fit in a Major I don't have a problem playing 5♦

[655321]

2♥ planning to force to game.

 

In the absence of specific agreements about gadgets for this hand type, I would not consider any other bid.

[skjaeran]

2♥, natural F1. Planning to GF this, even vs a light opener. But prefer to go slowly.

I am somewhat surprised that you take this option of going slowly and then GF.

 

This suggests to me that a direct 3♥ by you would also be 5-5 and GF. I cannot imagine that you have two ways to show the exact same hand -- that would be rather redundant and unlike you.

 

So, I'll assume that a route showing GF with hearts and spades through 2♥ is different than a simple 5-5 and GF. What is that difference for you, when you do have specifically 5-5?

 

The difference cannot be pattern, because of the obvious -- you do have 5-5.

 

Is the difference the void? Is 3♥, when specifically 5-5, limited to 5521/5512 hands?

 

Or, is the difference some range issue? That would seem odd, as I would imagine that the precise one-timer bid would normally be expected to show bare GF to moderate GF, the F-ing around approach reserved for the very stronger hands.

 

I could not possibly use that approach, because aything but 3♥ with 5-5 would be either not GF or not 5-5, or perhaps some mega-huge take over hand, but I sure ain't got that.

The difference is that I've got a nice fit for partners suit here.

And I can't bid 1♠....3♥ and then rebid 4♦ over partners 3NT, that would show a stronger hand than this.

[pclayton]

2♥. Worth an upgrade with the diamond support. Too good for 3♥ (inv).

[andy_h]

I've got a pretty good hand for partner, so I will take the low road of 2H first and see what develops.

[gnasher]

2♥. Unsuitable for a 3♥ splinter.

[Edmunte1]

- 2♥ (upgrading);

- Over 1♦-1M-2♦ we lost a lot of bidding space, so the development over this sequence is pretty difficult;

- I consider necessary to have an invitational hand with both majors on this sequence. I play 3♥ bid for that, and i think it should be standard;

- I've played with some success 2NT forcing over 1m-1M-2m. Thus for example:

-1♦-1M-2♦ -3♦ shows a good invitation

-1♦-1M-2♦-2NT-3♣-3♦ shows a weaker invitation

-1♦-1♠-2♦ -3♥ shows an invitational hand with 55+ majors

-1♦-1♠-2♦-2NT-3♣-3♥ shows a GF hand with 55+ majors

.........

[kenrexford]

The difference is that I've got a nice fit for partners suit here.

And I can't bid 1♠....3♥ and then rebid 4♦ over partners 3NT, that would show a stronger hand than this.

Not meaning to pick an argument, but what about 5♦ if partner actually bids 3NT?

[Hanoi5]

  - 2♥ (upgrading);

- Over 1♦-1M-2♦ we lost a lot of bidding space, so the development over this sequence is pretty difficult;

- I consider necessary to have an invitational hand with both majors on this sequence. I play 3♥ bid for that, and i think it should be standard;

- I've played with some success 2NT forcing over 1m-1M-2m. Thus for example:

-1♦-1M-2♦ -3♦ shows a good invitation

-1♦-1M-2♦-2NT-3♣-3♦ shows a weaker invitation

-1♦-1♠-2♦ -3♥ shows an invitational hand with 55+ majors

-1♦-1♠-2♦-2NT-3♣-3♥ shows a GF hand with 55+ majors

 

So 2NT would be forcing? I voted for 3♥, but then I thought, isn't 2♥ forcing, too?

[bid_em_up]

For those of you bidding 2♥, partner will bid 2♠.

 

For those bidding 3♥, partner will bid 3♠.

 

Now what?

[pclayton]

I'm kind of surprised from the comments that 3♥ shows a GF 5-5 or something else like a splinter. To me this sequence isn't much different than 1♦ - 1♠ - 1N - 3♥.

 

Round here, a lot of people play 2♥ as NF, although I know that isn't standard.

[Hanoi5]

I'd bid 4♠ now.

[gnasher]

After ... 2H-2S, I would play 3♦ and 3♥ as non-forcing. I'd bid 3♣, Fourth Suit Forcing.

 

Partner hasn't promised three spades, so the suggested 4♠ seems rather precipitate.

[skjaeran]

The difference is that I've got a nice fit for partners suit here.

And I can't bid 1♠....3♥ and then rebid 4♦ over partners 3NT, that would show a stronger hand than this.

Not meaning to pick an argument, but what about 5♦ if partner actually bids 3NT?

No, I'd like partner to be able to suggest 4♥ with a threebagger as well!

[Finch]

After 2H... 2S I would bid 3D, showing a 5431 forcing hand.

 

I don't see why gnasher thinks 3D is non-forcing, if I had an invitational hand with diamonds I'd have raised diamonds last round (can still get back to hearts if partner bids them).

 

It seems unplayable to have to bid 2H, then 3C FSF when I have a forcing diamond raise. Never mind this hand, what if I've got something like

 

AQxxx

AKx

Kxx

xx

 

over 2D I have to come up with some forcing bid, so I bid 2H.

Partner gives preference to spades, and now if I still can't bid diamonds natural and forcing I'm truly stuck.

[RichMor]

To the first question, I would rebid 2 ♥ over 2♦.

 

When pard rebids 2♠, I think that denies a good 2♦ rebid with 3 Spades and denies 4 Hearts as well.

 

To the second question - what next ? - I would rebid 3♦ which is forcing(I hope).

 

Over 3♦, pard can rebid 3♥ or 3♠ with 3-card support or rebid 3NT with some kind of Club stopper.

 

Hope pard sees it all the same way.

[gnasher]

I don't see why gnasher thinks 3D is non-forcing, if I had an invitational hand with diamonds I'd have raised diamonds last round (can still get back to hearts if partner bids them).

What's this? The queen of limit bids plays a simple return preference as forcing?

 

I want to reach:

• 4♥ with a 5431 invitation opposite a 2452 13-count
   
  
• 3♦ with a 5233 invitation opposite a 2452 13-count
   
  
• 3♦ with a 5431 invitation opposite a 2263 10-count
   
  

I don't much like the idea of raising to 3♦ directly with the 5431 invitation. Maybe I should accept having to play in 2♠ instead of 3♦ with this shape.

AQxxx

AKx

Kxx

xx

With this hand I'd bid a slow 2♥ followed by a prompt 3♣.

[kenrexford]

The difference is that I've got a nice fit for partners suit here.

And I can't bid 1♠....3♥ and then rebid 4♦ over partners 3NT, that would show a stronger hand than this.

Not meaning to pick an argument, but what about 5♦ if partner actually bids 3NT?

No, I'd like partner to be able to suggest 4♥ with a threebagger as well!

Oh, because 3♥ does not promise five of each, then?

[kenrexford]

For those bidding 3♥, partner will bid 3♠.

 

Now what?

Well, it depends on what 3♠ means.

 

As my 3♥ showed 5-5 pattern (at a minimum) and GF values, I'll assume that 3♠ could either be used to show no 3-card major fit but uncertainty (3NT Last Train) or a true spade fit. This seems somewhat critical to the "Now what?" question.

 

If partner's 3♠ does not establish a fit, but is a 3NT-LT bid, then he would have bid either 4♠ (minimal) or 4♦ (spade flag, extras) with three-card support. Thus, in this auction, I will know whether partner does or does not have a three-card fit, but I don't know in this auction whether he does or does not have a fit because I do not know what you mean by 3♠.