Awkward hand after 2/1 GFing sequence

[Jinksy]

[hv=pc=n&s=s32hj432d3cakqj97&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1dp2c(GF)p3d(Setting%20suit)p]133|200[/hv]

 

IMPs.

 

i) Do you agree with your 2/1 bid?

ii) Having got here, what's your next bid?

iii) If you bid 3♥, p will bid 3♠. (both bids showing a fragment in the respective suits). What would you do over that?

[kenrexford]

I for the life on me do not know what your 3D shows.

[mike777]

If 3d "sets suit" then I have an easy 4c bid, no problem yet.

 

 

Partner is captain!

 

 

At this point I promise:

zero diamonds

no help in hearts

no help in spades

something in clubs!

[Jinksy]

I for the life on me do not know what your 3D shows.

 

Our agreement is a suit that should play for no more than one loser opposite a void on the most likely trump split, and, near the boundaries, a hand that has no suspicion that another denomination would be better (though you might grudgingly stop in 3N). I would think of AKQxxxx as a borderline case.

[fromageGB]

1) No. I am not familiar with 2/1 forcing after a 1♦ opening, but if 1NT is not forcing, then 3♣?

2) If "setting the suit" means there will be no other contract than one in diamonds, then I suppose the responder rebid must be a cue, if there is one, or 4♦ without. So here 4♣.

3) If 3♥ is an option then I am totally lost.

[gordontd]

1) No. I am not familiar with 2/1 forcing after a 1♦ opening, but if 1NT is not forcing, then 3♣?

2) If "setting the suit" means there will be no other contract than one in diamonds, then I suppose the responder rebid must be a cue, if there is one, or 4♦ without. So here 4♣.

3) If 3♥ is an option then I am totally lost.

Responding 1H would be forcing.

[The_Badger]

hi Jinksy,

 

1. I agree with 2/1 2♣ bid. That hand would be worth an opening at the one level, and is probably nearer 13-14 counting distribution and the long suit.

 

2. If partner rebids 3♦ setting the suit by himself, then plenty of players usually bid controls after that so I bid 4♣. As mike777 says partner will not be under any illusion. (When a player set a trump suit by himself, he is usually angling towards a slam. Therefore I will bypass the 3NT level.)

 

3. I wouldn't bid 3♥. See 2 above.

[mycroft]

I don't like 1♦-2♣ being unilaterally GF (usually combined with 1♦-2♦ being u.GF around here), but it's becoming more prevalent and played by better players than I, so what do I know? You certainly create a number of unbiddable hands. Would I do it with that hand? Not sure. I might (even though I'm 2316 :-) decide to bid 1♥ and then 3♣ over 1NT or the like. I might decide it's a GF.

 

After that, I agree with most here: when partner bids 3♦, he's not looking for 3NT (6? possibly). Neither are you, frankly. He has, as you said, a "one loser opposite a void", "we're playing in this suit or NT" hand. 4♣, I don't have a major control (I know you bid fragments here, but I don't even have a "half stopper fragment"). Partner may be surprised at the honour locations, but probably won't be upset with the trick-taking potential of my hand in whatever contract 4♣ tells him to play.

[Zelandakh]

In auctions where a minor is "set" at the 3 level with slam interest, I like to play that the first step (ie 3♥ over 3♦) is the equivalent of a Frivolous 3NT, essentially declining the slam try, with other calls showing serious slam interest. Perhaps that would be an option for you.

[The_Badger]

In auctions where a minor is "set" at the 3 level with slam interest, I like to play that the first step (ie 3♥ over 3♦) is the equivalent of a Frivolous 3NT, essentially declining the slam try, with other calls showing serious slam interest. Perhaps that would be an option for you.

 

Now that is funny, Zelandakh. "The Frivolous 3NT" Impure alliteration, and something Victor Mollo might have coined in his Menagerie series :)

[Jinksy]

Partner's hand, as well as I can remember it:

 

Ax

Ax

AKJTxxxx

x

 

So the challenge is to somehow get to 7♣ after partner 'sets diamonds'. We haven't got any relevant agreements about how to switch suits, but I thought a direct bid of 5♣ over 3♦ might show basically this hand - one that has all its offensive strength in clubs, and not enough in diamonds to be guaranteed an entry to clubs unless they're trumps.