Your call?

[cnszsun]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=saqxhadajxxxxcqxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

ps-ps-1♦-ps

1♠-ps-??[/hv]

[mike777]

2c

 

 

If I can just get past this round.

 

very common problem.

[P_Marlowe]

3D.

 

Some play, that 3D promises 3 card support for partners major, this

would of course be perfect.

I dont know, what they bid without 3 card support, most likely 2NT,

forcing with a 6 card suit.

 

Playing standard, just show your overall values and the 6th diamond

and you will be doing fine most of the time.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[the hog]

Without the use of any gadgets - 3D.

[Fluffy]

without the use of any gadgets either open 1NT or rebid 2NT now.

[rd6789]

Having opened 1D I think 3D now is best as jump-raising on 3-card support is always dodgy and it looks too strong for 2C

 

To open 1NT instead of 1D has appeal,

[pooltuna]

looks like a choice between 3♦ and 3♠. NV I would go for 3♦ and V I would try the riskier 3♠.

[effervesce]

I think I'll go with 2♣ as well, then correct partner's bid back to spades eg 2♦ to 2♠. The diamonds aren't good enough for 3♦ for me.

[skjaeran]

2♣ for me, practically forcing, as I play it. Very seldom plays a stupid 3-3 fit. Supporting spades next. Never 3♦ on this suit for me.

[andy_h]

Think I go with 2♣ as well

[Phil]

2♣, not 3♦. Everything else is a distortion and not worthy of consideration.

 

Whether or not you play 2♣ as forcing, or close to it, isn't that important.

 

If you consider the subset of hands that passes 3♦ and the subset that passes 2♣, they are quite similar. So why not try to get across the fact you have three spades, and nine cards in the minors?

 

Great problem.

[rd6789]

2♣, not 3♦.

 

why not try to get across the fact you have three spades, and nine cards in the minors?

 

I don't understand this - 1D-1S;2C could be 0355 shape

[Phil]

2♣, not 3♦.

 

why not try to get across the fact you have three spades, and nine cards in the minors?

 

I don't understand this - 1D-1S;2C could be 0355 shape

It could be 6-6 too. What is your point?

[rd6789]

i thought you implied 2C showed 3 card spade support as you said "why not try to get across the fact you have three spades, and nine cards in the minors" ?

[Phil]

i thought you implied 2C showed 3 card spade support as you said "why not try to get across the fact you have three spades, and nine cards in the minors" ?

No. My hope is to raise spades later (if given the chance).

 

Of course 2♣ doesn't show 3 card spade support, thats silly. I think newer players read posts about Gazzilli and Cole and it screws them up.

[ArtK78]

2♣ now, intending to raise spades strongly later.

 

Not 3♦ even if my diamonds were better than this, as I do not want to emphasize playing in diamonds - I want to emphasize playing in spades, even on a 4-3. But I do not want to imply that I have 4 spades by raising directly to 3♠, which is what my hand is worth.

 

The idea of opening this hand 1NT cannot be taken seriously.

[Jlall]

Don't really do this nearly as often as I used to but 2C.

[quiddity]

3S for me. I don't like the diamond suit opposite a singleton and I think it risks a pass when 4S is on. The cards are too prime and the hand too shapely for 2NT.

 

I think 2C runs a real risk of partner passing because:

- partner is a passed hand;

- the diamonds are significantly longer than the clubs (so partner will likely hold longer clubs than diamonds);

- where are the hearts? Partner could easily hold 5-4 or 5-5 in the majors and pass out the "misfit". He might do this with a decent hand, which would be a disaster.

[aguahombre]

not only is 2c a time-honored improvisation with this and similar difficult rebids, but I believe it was made into an actual convention by Murray/Kehela way back. It might have been Kokish and someone, though...my memory fades.

[the hog]

2♣, not 3♦. Everything else is a distortion and not worthy of consideration.

 

Whether or not you play 2♣ as forcing, or close to it, isn't that important.

 

If you consider the subset of hands that passes 3♦ and the subset that passes 2♣, they are quite similar. So why not try to get across the fact you have three spades, and nine cards in the minors?

 

Great problem.

And 2C is not a distortion, Phil? Sorry , but this is a lol.

[the hog]

2♣ now, intending to raise spades strongly later.

 

Not 3♦ even if my diamonds were better than this, as I do not want to emphasize playing in diamonds - I want to emphasize playing in spades, even on a 4-3.  But I do not want to imply that I have 4 spades by raising directly to 3♠, which is what my hand is worth.

 

The idea of opening this hand 1NT cannot be taken seriously.

And if there is no later?

[nigel_k]

Since nobody has mentioned them yet, I would prefer 2♥ or 2NT to either 3♠ or 3♦.

 

I don't know whether 2♣ will work out best on average, but 3♠ and 3♦ are not even in my top three choices.

[Phil]

2♣ now, intending to raise spades strongly later.

 

Not 3♦ even if my diamonds were better than this, as I do not want to emphasize playing in diamonds - I want to emphasize playing in spades, even on a 4-3.  But I do not want to imply that I have 4 spades by raising directly to 3♠, which is what my hand is worth.

 

The idea of opening this hand 1NT cannot be taken seriously.

And if there is no later?

If there is no later than we we will likely be playing a 4-3 club fit instead of a 6-2 diamond part score. Certainly not the end of the world as we know it.

 

Finding game simply has to take priority. Unless your partner routinely rebids a weak five card major after 3♦, you aren't finding 4♠ isn't going to happen unless you guess later to bid it over 3N.

[Double !]

Since nobody has mentioned them yet, I would prefer 2♥ or 2NT to either 3♠ or 3♦.

WHAT?

Inventing a Reverse on a stiff Ace suit in order to ensure a rebid from Partner?

UNTHINKABLE! Inconceivable. Never heard of such a thing (yeah, right! lol :rolleyes:).

I, too, like a 2 ♥ rebid unless I'm sure that partner will not pass a 2♣ rebid.

The Diamond suit is an honor short of qualifying for a 3 ♦ rebid with 2/3 of your honor cards being outside of your diamond suit.

There are hands that you are able to show/ describe, and there are hands that are difficult to describe and where you need to ask questions/ try to get further descriptions of partner's hand. This given hand seems to fall into the second category.

 

DHL:

[gnasher]

Unless your partner routinely rebids a weak five card major after 3♦, you aren't finding 4♠

Isn't that exactly what partner is supposed to do, if 3♦ doesn't deny three spades? With all those diamond tricks available in notrumps, we're unlikely to want to play a 5-2 spade fit, so suit quality shouldn't come into it.