Roshomon

[Mbodell]

To me this is a 3♣ bid. I'd rather be longer in clubs or stronger to do this, but I'm upgrading my hand after hearing partners call and even before the upgrade I was on the border of strong enough to make the 3 level bid.

[Poky]

2♠ is the only normal rebid. So, after 2NT, i can bid 3♦ and pull subsequent 3NT to 4♣ showing a strongish 5134 hand. Just a perfect description of my hand.

[Codo]

2♠ is the only normal rebid. So, after 2NT, i can bid 3♦ and pull subsequent 3NT to 4♣ showing a strongish 5134 hand. Just a perfect description of my hand.

besides the fact the for nobody and his dog 2 ♠ followed by 3 ♦ is showing a strong hand...

[jjbrr]

3♣

[bluecalm]

3C. Hand is strong enough for this. In my methods which do not include artificial 2C or other gadgets (assumedly OP would have said if they had such methods, so they don't either), 2D does not promise five card suit so raising diamonds with only 3-card support is premature.

 

I guess it depends where you live. Bidding 2♦ with 4 diamonds where I live is considered basically a semi psych.

Also just because something is "amateur standard" doesn't mean it makes much sense (I am yet to see world class pair bidding 2/1 with 4carder and I saw quite a few hands). Here bidding 2♦ violates basic bidding principles imo (staying low, not having same hand in 2 different bids (gf balanced in both 2♣ and 2♦) and exchanging information which is not needed but benefit the opponents).

 

Anyway, the problem with 3♣ is that we will often hear 3NT as partner will bid that with ♥ stopper. After that we will often miss good slam imo, unless you plan to bid 4♦ afte 3NT but that on the other hand will often get us too high.

[jdonn]

3♣. It works best when partner bids 3NT and next I get to bid 4♦. It may work a bit worse other times but something inside me will still feel pretty good about bidding my 5 card suit, then my 4 card suit, then my 3 card suit.

[hanp]

Having the diamond queen and such strong spades, I think it will be rare that 6C will be better than 6D. However, starting with 3C will often paint such a better picture of my hand that I prefer it anyway.

 

I don't understand 2S at all.

[Jlall]

I don't understand 2S at all.

If 3C shows 5-5 and 3D shows 4 diamonds, then 2S is automatic. I think both of those agreements are good ones to have.

 

I don't know about you but I try to avoid 1S p 2D p 3C at all costs, especially since we're in the wild wild west where 2D can be based on 2443. This is just a horrendous start to the auction and pretty lol to me when both minors are/can be based on 4 card suits.

 

If 2D were always based on 5 I wouldn't mind 3D on this particular hand since we have such a great hand for a diamond slam, and even if partner has 3 spades that's probably where we want to be. I'm sure you all have your auction for getting back to diamonds after 1S p 2D p 3C p 3S but I wish you luck. Still lying about a 4th trump is a pretty major lie.

 

I can see why 1S...3C...4D is appealing and that is perfect if partner bids 3N (as long as 3C didn't show 5!), on the other hand 1S-2D-2S-2N-3D-3N-4C also gets the job done pretty nicely in that regard.

[peachy]

3C. Hand is strong enough for this. In my methods which do not include artificial 2C or other gadgets (assumedly OP would have said if they had such methods, so they don't either), 2D does not promise five card suit so raising diamonds with only 3-card support is premature.

 

I guess it depends where you live. Bidding 2♦ with 4 diamonds where I live is considered basically a semi psych.

Also just because something is "amateur standard" doesn't mean it makes much sense (I am yet to see world class pair bidding 2/1 with 4carder and I saw quite a few hands).

It does depend where you live.

It does not bother me at all when someone like you calls the common Western US style "amateur standard".

[jdonn]

I don't like raising diamonds directly not only because a 4-4 club fit might be better but because we could just have a longer club fit, like partner is 5-5 in the minors. x Ax Kxxxx KQxxx?

[bid_em_up]

I would bid 3♣.  If partner bids anything but 3NT, I will bid 4♦ and think I am well placed.  If partner bids 3NT...well, let's hope partner does not do that to me.

Very well. Partner bids 3♥, and you bid a "well-placed" 4♦. This was the sequence actually followed at the table, but I was not feeling quite as smug about it as I might have done. For example, might I not bid the same way with:

 

♠AKxxx ♥xx ♦Qx ♣AKxx?

Wouldn't this hand bid 3♣ over 2♦?

[j0i]

I bid 3♣ as 2♦ doesn't promise 5 dimonds

[Finch]

(I am yet to see world class pair bidding 2/1 with 4carder and I saw quite a few hands).

I don't think you are watching the right players.

I don't know who dburn was playing with here, but he's certainly a world class player e.g. I bet he has more Olympiad medals than you do.

 

You, South, open 1♠ and partner bids 2♦, game-forcing. What call do you make?

 

Well personally, I bid 2♥ relay. If partner asks with 2♠, I bid 3♣ showing exactly 5-4; over his next call (depending what it is) I will bid 4♦ showing 5134 with extra values. If he doesn't relay I will know a lot about his hand, but it will depend what he does do (e.g. if he bids 2NT showing 3-card spade support I'll probably splinter with 4H, if he bids 3C showing 5-5 or 6-5 or indeed 3D showing a self-supporting suit I'm probably worth a simple 4H kickback over either).

 

But I suspect you don't mean what call would I make, rather what call would I make in your shoes. And that is 3♣, followed by 4♦ over 3H or 3S. Over 3NT by partner I'm tempted to pass, assuming that 3♣ has already shown extra values. And yes, it's possible I've got AKxxx xx Qx AKxx for this sequence, but it still seems the best I can do.

[whereagles]

3♣ here, which should show extras IMO.

[junyi_zhu]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sakj53hjdq96caj43]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

You, South, open 1♠ and partner bids 2♦, game-forcing. What call do you make?

I'd bid 3C, the most natural bid available. If partner rebids 3D, you can probably RKC IMO. If partner bids 3S, you should make quite a few slam tries. If partner bid 3NT, you can bid 4D to show your pattern and slam interest. So you are well prepared IMO. When 3C shows both your pattern and strength, I don't see any reasons not to bid it. A natural bid which also narrows down your strength range is the reason we play a quite natural system, instead of relays systems.

[junyi_zhu]

Oh, we didn't have much in the way of sophistication. For example, with:

 

♠xx ♥AQxx ♦AKJx ♣xxx

 

we would respond 2♦ to 1♠. I don't know what you would do, but it seems to me that you must have to perform some contortions if 2♦ "delivered a 5 card suit".

 

2♣ for me (because it contains balanced gf hand by agreement). Actually I consider 2♦ just a bad bid/system design.

You will have a chance to play in ♦ if partner have 4 of them anyway and there is no reason to design system in such a way that you tell opponents what you have without much benefits for your side.

 

In hand in question I bid 3♦ which I hope promises extras. If it doesn't promise extras I guess I will go with 3♣.

The largest benefit is that 2D shows your shape well. You just can't say a bid that forces to game and shows 4 or more in that suit doesn't benefit your bidding. The huge problem for 2C to put all the balanced hands in is that 2 C isn't as low as many perceive. 2C is low, but 5C 6C 7C are all low. So if you really have a club fit, it becomes very slow to find the club fit, cuebid and ask for KC at a relative low level with acceptable bidding accuracies. Even complicated relay sequences can't solve many the problems. In that sense, once a gameforcing sequence is set up, nothing is really low IMO. 2C is relatively low comparing with 2D/2H, but 2C is high enough comparing with 5C/6C and 7C.

[Jlall]

I don't like raising diamonds directly not only because a 4-4 club fit might be better but because we could just have a longer club fit, like partner is 5-5 in the minors. x Ax Kxxxx KQxxx?

I agree, bidding 2S will solve this problem. Really don't understand the hate for 2S, it's not a sprint, you don't have to blow your wad immediately. There are no bad rebids from partner over 2S. The worst is 3S because we haven't described much about our hand, but we're still well positioned to find out about partner's hand and then offer 6/7D in that case.

 

If partner bids 3C or 3D that's awesome. Otherwise he will probably bid 2N and then 3D doesn't sound like a 4 card fit. I guess the main gain in the construction is that you can distinguish between 3 and 4 card raises which is obv very useful. Even if he bids 3H we have learned a ton about his hand and are not poorly positioned at all.

 

But I guess my point with all of this is not how awesome having to bid 2S with this hand is, it's more that:

 

1) Bidding 3D with 4 diamonds is awesome.

2) Bidding 3C with 5 clubs is awesome.

3) If you can do neither of those then the "downside" of 1 and 2 is that you have to bid 2S on this hand. I don't really see why it's a downside though. I'd rather bid 2S than a poorly defined 3D or 3C anyways.

 

We just don't have that much room and if we bid 2S as often as possible eliminating some key hand types, and then partner bids 2N as often as possible over that eliminating some key hand types, we can get down to business without having lost any room. To me this makes a lot of sense.

[jdonn]

Hey I wasn't one of those who railed against 2♠.

[cherdanno]

Well if we have the agreement that 3♣ shows 5 clubs then of course I don't bid 3♣ with this hand. But I see many auctions where you can't really show this hand after 2♠ but can show it pretty well after 3♣.

2S 2N 3D 3H - I guess 4C is a cue for clubs now but we haven't shown our heart shortness; compare with 3C 3H 4D.

2S 2N 3D 3N - I guess we have to bid 4C now but is 4C really a side suit now, rather than a cue with, say, a strong 6232 hand? On the other hand, I think after 3C 3N we can pass as we have shown extra values and partner has shown a good stop in hearts. Or we can bid on with 4D and again have described our hand pretty well.

I guess on many other auctions we will come out even, e.g. if partner rebids diamonds I guess we can just force to keycard.

[Jlall]

Yes I would bid 3C if it showed 4+ clubs and extras and if 2D showed only 4+ fwiw.

 

If 3D or 3H only promised 3 diamonds and 2D promised I might choose that also.

 

I guess what I'm saying is I think this should come down to a matter of system not style, and in my preferred type of system this would bid a 2S bid. Not ideal.

 

If this hand really comes down to style and 2S 3C 3D 3H are all possible bids in my system, I'd like to define my system more tightly.

[aguahombre]

So many of the alleged "disputes" on these fora depend on everything else involved in one's style, and would not be disputes at all if all our styles were the same.

 

This sounds like an inane truism....but the heated disagreements are often talking about a whole different set of inferences (apples and oranges).

 

2/1 is especially prone to this problem. What does a 2/1 bid promise in regard to length? What can a forcing NT show? Do we play J2N? Do we play constructive raises? Do we use Bergen? In no way can we agree on judgement calls if we don't have a style agreement.

 

Edit: the big point of all this is: some posters recognize style differences; others just dismiss certain choices and call them awful, or other adjectives --without understanding the context. JLALL seems to go out of his way to recognize style differences, and others as well.

[awm]

My style here is that 2♦ shows four, raising to 3♦ shows four-card support. The "high reverse" into 3♣ can be made on four cards, but I'd prefer to have a more pure hand with less interest in playing a diamond contract. It will be hard to back into diamonds if partner bids 3♠ or 4♣ over my 3♣ rebid (I play 4♦ in both those cases as a cue). While the sequence of 1♠...3♣...4♦ does show shape nicely (assuming partner's second bid is such that 4♦ would be natural), it also means you start cuebidding at a pretty high level; temporizing with 2♠ will often let me set diamonds at the three-level which makes for easier cuebidding (although less pattern bidding).

[gnasher]

If you're going to raise diamonds immediately, I don't understand 3♦ rather than 3♥. If the trumps are good enough for 3♦, why aren't they good enough for 3♥?

[y66]

I think a splinter by opener should provide 4-card trump support even when responder promises 5 or more diamonds.

[aguahombre]

again depends on your partnership style. If Splinter bids do not show extra values, just four-card support ---in a 2/1 situation, then that seems to be the best use of that space consuming rebid. Ours guarantee 4, even though 2D was 5.

 

That is just us. And it works well for us not to cram the bidding with hands which have extra values. That is how we think 2/1 was meant to work. We don't care if others think it should be different.

 

In our opinion this hand is too strong for the splinter, and has one too few diamonds.