5Ds or 3NT?

[mw64ahw]

A simple auction (IMPS) opponents silent throughout

2♦ is GI 5+♦

3♥ is 5♥ GF[hv=pc=n&s=skjt83haqj84dk52c&n=s92h95daq963cat72&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2dp3hp?]266|200[/hv]

NB: the poll is asking for your final contract

[ali quarg]

I expect North to bid 3NT and wouldn't want to miss the potential slam so 4♦ would be my South bid ending in 5/6♦. Having the void in ♣ is also a potential warning sign opposite a minimal responder

[DavidKok]

South doesn't have another bid over 3NT. Partner is announcing a misfit and we've bid on shape, not strength.

[Cyberyeti]

South doesn't have another bid over 3NT. Partner is announcing a misfit and we've bid on shape, not strength.

 

On another day, N has x, K, AQxxxx, QJxx (add another card somewhere) which he isn't exactly going to evaluate as gold dust, your ♦ Kxx is a really good holding he doesn't know about, and suggest it's not the misfit he thinks it is

[DavidKok]

Yes, that's one of the downsides of playing 2♦ as 10+. You have to jump on hands that have multiple things to contibute, and cut into your own slam investigation. On a third day North has x, xx, ♦ATxxx, ♣KQJxx and you get to explain why you thought your hand was worth another bid even after deciding you are worth a GF opposite a 10-count and then hearing of the misfit. I think not seeking a sharp slam is the least of evils here, you are fixed by the systemic jump on the second round.

 

Speaking of, what's the downside to bidding 2♥ instead of 3♥?

[Cyberyeti]

Yes, that's one of the downsides of playing 2♦ as 10+. You have to jump on hands that have multiple things to contibute, and cut into your own slam investigation. On a third day North has x, xx, ♦ATxxx, ♣KQJxx and you get to explain why you thought your hand was worth another bid even after deciding you are worth a GF opposite a 10-count and then hearing of the misfit. I think not seeking a sharp slam is the least of evils here, you are fixed by the systemic jump on the second round.

 

Speaking of, what's the downside to bidding 2♥ instead of 3♥?

 

We would bid 3♥ but it wouldn't actually be forcing and would show this hand type 2 decent 5 card suits, but not a great hand, and would deny the ability to bid 2N (GF not necessarily bal).

 

For most people 2♥ would be perfectly acceptable.

[ali quarg]

Speaking of, what's the downside to bidding 2♥ instead of 3♥?

If you bid 2♥ as natural then GI/GF is ambiguous. You get a 2♠/2NT response. That leaves South showing their 5!H and needing to force to game which may not be the case if North takes this as Pass/Correct rather than GF bid.

[DavidKok]

I was intending to bid 3♦, so 1♠-2♦; 2♥-2NT; 3♦. If 2NT is NF then 3♦ logically shows extras and is therefore GF. This way I show (approximately) a 5=4=3=1, but partner can now give preference to hearts on a 3-card suit so the 5-3 fit is not lost. We've also shown some extras and have no further reason to doubt partner's possible 3NT over 3♦.

That being said I don't play this system, so maybe my expectations are completely off.

[mw64ahw]

I was intending to bid 3♦, so 1♠-2♦; 2♥-2NT; 3♦. If 2NT is NF then 3♦ logically shows extras and is therefore GF. This way I show (approximately) a 5=4=3=1, but partner can now give preference to hearts on a 3-card suit so the 5-3 fit is not lost. We've also shown some extras and have no further reason to doubt partner's possible 3NT over 3♦.

That being said I don't play this system, so maybe my expectations are completely off.

3♦ for me is no extras and a preference to play there rather than 2NT so a 5431 distribution

[helene_t]

If you bid 2♥ as natural then GI/GF is ambiguous. You get a 2♠/2NT response. That leaves South showing their 5!H and needing to force to game which may not be the case if North takes this as Pass/Correct rather than GF bid.

Justin Lall's "Good convention" may apply here, though.

https://csbnews.org/conventions-a-good-convention-by-justin-lall/

[mikeh]

Justin Lall's "Good convention" may apply here, though.

https://csbnews.org/conventions-a-good-convention-by-justin-lall/

Personally, I think that playing transfers over 2N is superior. Justin’s convention means that with 5=4=4=0, after 1S 2C 2H 2N opener can’t show diamonds,yet the hand could easily belong on diamonds, since responder will often hold 4 of them.

[mikeh]

3♦ for me is no extras and a preference to play there rather than 2NT so a 5431 distribution

One of the downsides to playing that 2D was not game force. Of course, playing 2/1, we might never find the diamond fit

 

1S 1N 2H 2N 3D is possible but I suspect most would bid 3H and have north bid 3S.

[mw64ahw]

Personally, I think that playing transfers over 2N is superior. Justin's convention means that with 5=4=4=0, after 1S 2C 2H 2N opener can't show diamonds,yet the hand could easily belong on diamonds, since responder will often hold 4 of them.

Good idea - maybe one I'll adopt in a similar fashion

[mikeh]

Good idea - maybe one I'll adopt in a similar fashion

It can be used in almost all sequences in which 2N is a natural invitation

 

1M 1N 2N transfers. 1S 1N 2N 3S shows clubs with interest beyond 3N should opener have decent clubs and some reason to want to cooperate (usually a tenuous holding in a side suit).

 

1M 1N 2C 2N. 3C has to be natural, so no transfers

 

1M 1N 2D 2N. 3C is a transfer. Opener may have a weak 5-5, intending to pass next, or a gf hand about to look for the best strain.

 

1S 1N 2D 2N 3D shows 5341, since responder may have 5 hearts.

 

1C 1S 2N. Transfers are on here. 3S would be clubs (obviously some memory issues arise), but opener only bypasses 3N with a good hand for clubs, within the context of the auction so far. Note that responder can pull 3N to show slam interest despite opener’s regressive bid

 

 

Transfers are under-utilized, in my view, by the great majority of players. Yes, they impose some memory demands but once internalized they are flexible and powerful.