Another evaluation problem

[straube]

It's much harder for opener to make his own invitation after...

1S-1N, 2D-2S

because responder may have as few as 6 HCP and 1 spade.

 

Well what's the difference, I think it's pretty clear to pass with this hand where partner preferences back anyway. The odds of reaching a good game are much slimmer than the odds of getting too high.

 

I think we're agreeing that it requires more for 1S-1N, 2D-2S, 3S than the example hand has. My argument was that this hand should have rebid 2S and then accepted partner's raise of 3S to game. Having rebid 2D, he can't know if partner would have raised to 3S.

 

Anyway, it seems to me that the possibility responder has a singleton spade is a good reason to bid 2♦ instead of 2♠. Hands where either responder can pass 2♦ and reach a better partscore or where he can raise diamonds but would have passed 2♠ and we reach a good game that way are far more common than the rare hand where responder has to preference back to 2♠ with a singleton.

 

There are obviously ways each method has of winning. Your method finds superior diamond part scores (and sometimes diamond games) and even leaves open the possibility for finding a spade game (1S-1N, 2D-3D, 3S-4S), but it also misses some spade games (1S-1N, 2D-2S).

[whereagles]

Justin, why do you prefer always rebidding the 2nd suit?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I think, if 2D would always promise a 4 card, than I would alway

bid diamonds.

 

But if 2D could be bid on a 3 carder only, than showing the 6th

spade has a lot more appeal.

The question is, what do you bid with 5332, some will bid 2C, some

will bid 2D.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe