[mikeh]

I don't mind the idea of 3♠ showing ♦: what else can it be?

But why suggesting a sacrifice? The 2♣ bidder has not yet shown strength, so why can't 3♠ have a constructive meaning?

And, more importantly, surely it makes more sense to show at least 5♠ here?

After all, with a 4=4 fit hand, you are less likely to want to bid 3♠ (forcing to 4♦) than with 5=4 or better. And if 3♠ can be 4 cards, what is partner to do over 4♥ with, say, 3=2=6=2 shape and a desire to bid, either as a save or a make? How will you, as the 3♠ bidder, know if his 4♠ is based on 3 or 4 card support?

To me 3♦ is entirely reasonable. If we want to get into the auction and at least pave the road for an (unlikely) 4=4 ♠ fit, try 3♥, not 3♠

I do not think the hand is quite good enough for that. Nor do I think that 4♦ or 5♦ are correct: see my previous post for rationale.

Finally, to advert to my favourite theme, if you were the 2♦ bidder would you, absent prior agreement, think 3♠ showed only 4? If not, then this 3♠ suggestion is another example of the bid fitting the hand, rather than the converse.

[whereagles]

Thx all. In practice 4♥ was indeed going down 1, but that was mainly because pard had a very unsuitable hand for his overcall (Qx xxx AT9xx Qxx).

About 3♦: it's acutally not as bad as some of you think. The reasoning was: "I'm not going to bid 4♦ because that might push them to a borderline game that might make. If they stop in 3♥, fine. Otherwise I'll think about it. I'm also not passing because I want pard to bid 5♦ over 4♥ with a suitable hand."

To bid 3 and follow-up with 5 is often dismissed as "beginner's move" by LOTT people, but there are situations where to think of it like that is an oversimplification.

About 5♦: was bid because this particular partner might have not interpreted 3♦ as a save-suggesting move, so bidder was in a bit of a guess. By the way, 3♠ as fit-bid was not an option with this pard either.