[xx1943]

Scoring: MP

---

South  North
   1♣     1♠
   2♣     2♦
  ??

Your are playing SAYC or 2/1.
1♣ pass 1♦ denies 4-card major except you have the strength to bid the major later reverse.

If you bid 2♠, do you promise 3 cards in !S?

AL

[mike777]

I am going to bid 3nt at MP.....this may be wrong.

[mike777]

3nt,,...this may be very wrong.

I think 2d shows a really good hand.

[P_Marlowe]

xx1943, on Jun 2 2006, 12:07 AM, said:

<snip>
If you bid 2♠, do you promise 3 cards in !S?
<snip>

Yes, 2D is just art., i.e. it asks
for further description, playing NMF,
I would simply bid 2H, denying
3 spades, and showing min..

It is unclear if 3C shows 6 card suit,
but what would you bid with
5 clubs and 4 diamonds, but no
diamond stopper.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I did overlookthe 4 card heart suit,
... that's why I voted for 3C,but I think
you should show the 4 card heart suit.

[Jboling]

There is a case for 2♦ being artificial in this case, but I think it then would be called Bourke relay (lowest new suit after 1x-1y-2x). The correct response in that case would be 2♠, promising 2 cards. 2♦ would be NMF in the sequence 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♦.

So I do not think 2♦ was intended as artificial in the current poll. My vote goes still to 2♠, sounds least encouraging to me, and partner has promised 5+♠ (unless otherwise agreed). With 3 card support and a good hand one can jump to 3♠. If 2♥ would be fourth suit nonforcing then it would be perfect, but it sounds like maximum with fitting honors in partners suits, and/or solid club suit, and asking for a stopper for 3NT.

[whereagles]

Hum.. taking 2♦ natural, weakish 4♠5♦, this is not looking good at all. Since bidding is north-american style, pard is probably aware of our 6 carder in clubs, yet he decided to try his luck with diamonds. He must have a 64 then, though a 55 comes to mind as well. The correct technical bid seems to be "pass".

However, opposite a player who just likes to bid what he has, 4♠5♦ is possible, so in that case I might try 2NT.

[FrancesHinden]

OK, I don't play North American style so I may be totally off base here, but why does 2D show a weakish 45 rather than simply natural and forcing? What would partner do with a 5242 14-count?

I would bid 2S, which doesn't show 3-card support. Very close second choice is 4th suit forcing, because I actually have quite a nice hand.

[Codo]

2 Diamond is surely artifical.
It can be: NMF, then I bid my second suit: Hearts.


If 2 Diamond showed a weak hand with 4 Spades and 5+ Diamonds, I ask the waiter to finish this hand. If he refuses, I pass and hope to survive.

If 2 Diamond showed a strong hand, I still bid 2 Heart.

I think, in the absence of any discussion, nmf is the best use for 2 Diamond.
With the weak hand, responder should just pass 2 Club.

[Walddk]

2♦ has nothing to do with NMF which only applies after 1mi - 1MA ; 1NT (rebid). 2♦ is natural (can be 3 and even 2 on rare occasions) and forcing; new suit by an unpassed responder is always forcing (F1, not necessarily GF).

Close between 2♥ and 2♠. I don't mind either, but I have a slight preference for 2♠.

1. It doesn't promise 3-card support in my book.
2. whereagles has strange ideas imo. "The correct technical bid seems to be "pass".

Ahem. Really?

Roland

[Codo]

Walddk, on Jun 2 2006, 08:49 PM, said:

2♦ has nothing to do with NMF which only applies after 1mi - 1MA ; 1NT (rebid). 2♦ is natural (can be 3 and even 2 on rare occasions) and forcing; new suit by an unpassed responder is always forcing (F1, not necessarily GF).

Close between 2♥ and 2♠. I don't mind either, but I have a slight preference for 2♠.

1. It doesn't promise 3-card support in my book.
2. whereagles has strange ideas imo. "The correct technical bid seems to be "pass".

Ahem. Really?

Roland

Hi Roland,

this is funny, I think while playing walsh (as they do here), 2 ♦ must be to play after 1 ♣ 1 M 1 NT, or you have discussed some relay scheme where you can bid 2 ♣ after 1 NT as a puppet to 2 ♦. But in that case, the direct 2 ♦ is natural and shows 4+ Diamonds with invitational strength ( at least in the way I got used to play it).

[Echognome]

Walddk, on Jun 2 2006, 11:49 AM, said:

2♦ has nothing to do with NMF which only applies after 1mi - 1MA ; 1NT (rebid). 2♦ is natural (can be 3 and even 2 on rare occasions) and forcing; new suit by an unpassed responder is always forcing (F1, not necessarily GF).

Indeed. If you are not playing SJSs (and perhaps even if you are) how will you bid the following hand as responder:

♠KQJxx ♥KQx ♦Ax ♣Qxx

You can obviously weaken the hand by dropping a Q. The point is that after you respond 1♠ partner bids 2♣ and you need to find a bid. Most would rather lie about a minor rather than a major.

[whereagles]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 2 2006, 08:59 AM, said:

OK, I don't play North American style so I may be totally off base here, but why does 2D show a weakish 45 rather than simply natural and forcing? What would partner do with a 5242 14-count?

In the way I learned to bid, this auction was supposed to be 4♠5♦ weakish. Nowadays it's usually given some artificial meaning, but, since the original poster didn't specify the meaning, I took it 4♠5♦ weakish, which is the most old-fashioned meaning I know of

With a good 14hcp 54, the bid would be 3♦ (in the way I learned).

[Walddk]

Codo, on Jun 2 2006, 01:59 PM, said:

Walddk, on Jun 2 2006, 08:49 PM, said:

2♦ has nothing to do with NMF which only applies after 1mi - 1MA ; 1NT (rebid). 2♦ is natural (can be 3 and even 2 on rare occasions) and forcing; new suit by an unpassed responder is always forcing (F1, not necessarily GF).

Close between 2♥ and 2♠. I don't mind either, but I have a slight preference for 2♠.

1. It doesn't promise 3-card support in my book.
2. whereagles has strange ideas imo. "The correct technical bid seems to be "pass".

Ahem. Really?

Roland

Hi Roland,

this is funny, I think while playing walsh (as they do here), 2 ♦ must be to play after 1 ♣ 1 M 1 NT, or you have discussed some relay scheme where you can bid 2 ♣ after 1 NT as a puppet to 2 ♦. But in that case, the direct 2 ♦ is natural and shows 4+ Diamonds with invitational strength ( at least in the way I got used to play it).

In that case I strongly recommend that you start playing something else. 2♦ as a sign off after 1♣ - 1MA ; 1NT was abandoned in most places 30+ years ago. Whether you play NMF, 1- or 2-way checkback doesn't matter as long as you have an agreement.

Yes, for me 2♣ is always a puppet to 2♦, whereas 2♦ is articifial GF asking for more info. This way you can always sign off in 2♦ if that is your wish.

But back to the point:

1♣ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♦

has nothing do to with NMF.

Roland

[whereagles]

Walddk, on Jun 2 2006, 11:49 AM, said:

whereagles has strange ideas imo. "The correct technical bid seems to be "pass".

Ahem. Really?

My bid was made in a context where the original auction showed 4♠5♦ weakish. (See my post above.)

Since responder heard opener rebid what is, very likely, a 6-card club suit and STILL insisted in bidding diamonds, the 4♠6♦ weakish scenario is likely, so pass isn't that strange. At least I think not

I hope this cleared it up.

[hrothgar]

Mark me down for 2♥
This will give me the best chance to pattern out.
It might even dsicourage a Heart lead versus 3N

[han]

The suggestion that 2♦ could be weak is slightly absurd in my opinion. With a weak hand partner can pass.

so 2♦ is absolutely forcing, whether it is artificial or not depends on partnership agreement. The choice is between 2♥ and 2♠. I think that 2♠ is better if it is clear that this does not show 3-card support. If this is not clear then I would bid 2♥, you can hardly go wrong with that.

[Codo]

Hannie, on Jun 2 2006, 09:25 PM, said:

The suggestion that 2♦ could be weak is slightly absurd in my opinion. With a weak hand partner can pass.

so 2♦ is absolutely forcing, whether it is artificial or not depends on partnership agreement. The choice is between 2♥ and 2♠. I think that 2♠ is better if it is clear that this does not show 3-card support. If this is not clear then I would bid 2♥, you can hardly go wrong with that.

A lot people write, that 2 ♠ does not show xxx or better in spade.
But why on earth should this be?

I do understand this, if pds bidding has shown 5+ Spades and 4+ Diamonds, but he has not..
I do understand this, if you always raise direct with 3 card support, but I did not find that in the notes.

So, why should 2 Spade here NOT show 3 Spades?

[hrothgar]

Codo, on Jun 2 2006, 03:58 PM, said:

Hannie, on Jun 2 2006, 09:25 PM, said:

The suggestion that 2♦ could be weak is slightly absurd in my opinion. With a weak hand partner can pass.

so 2♦ is absolutely forcing, whether it is artificial or not depends on partnership agreement. The choice is between 2♥ and 2♠. I think that 2♠ is better if it is clear that this does not show 3-card support. If this is not clear then I would bid 2♥, you can hardly go wrong with that.

A lot people write, that 2 ♠ does not show xxx or better in spade.
But why on earth should this be?

I do understand this, if pds bidding has shown 5+ Spades and 4+ Diamonds, but he has not..
I do understand this, if you always raise direct with 3 card support, but I did not find that in the notes.

So, why should 2 Spade here NOT show 3 Spades?

Consider the auction 1♣ - 1♠

Many people would chose to raise the 1♠ advance holding 3 card support. A protoypical example would be something like

♠ Axx
♦ x
♥ Qxxx
♣ AQJxx

Lots of folks (myself included) will raise to 2♠ on a pretty wide variety of hands. For these players, the 2♣ rebid doesn't necessarily deny three card Spade support, however, it does make it much less likely that opener holds three spades. Accordingly, its not really practical that the auction

1♣ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♦
2♠

promises three Spades

[Codo]

Walddk, on Jun 2 2006, 09:05 PM, said:

In that case I strongly recommend that you start playing something else. 2♦ as a sign off after 1♣ - 1MA ; 1NT was abandoned in most places 30+ years ago.

They played walsh 30 years ago? Wow, thought that was new...

But I still do not see your point: If 2 ♣ is a defined puppet, (which is very usefull playing walsh) where responder mostly has to bid 2 ♦, why should 2 ♦ direct not show Diamonds?

Quote

But back to the point:

1♣ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♦

has nothing do to with NMF.

Roland

Okay, so in your book, it shows 2 or more diamonds and is forcing.
Per definition, opener bid 1 Club, so this is a new minor. Somehow, this adds up to NEW MINOR FORCING, doesn´t it`?

[Codo]

hrothgar, on Jun 2 2006, 10:07 PM, said:

Codo, on Jun 2 2006, 03:58 PM, said:

Hannie, on Jun 2 2006, 09:25 PM, said:

The suggestion that 2♦ could be weak is slightly absurd in my opinion. With a weak hand partner can pass.

so 2♦ is absolutely forcing, whether it is artificial or not depends on partnership agreement. The choice is between 2♥ and 2♠. I think that 2♠ is better if it is clear that this does not show 3-card support. If this is not clear then I would bid 2♥, you can hardly go wrong with that.

A lot people write, that 2 ♠ does not show xxx or better in spade.
But why on earth should this be?

I do understand this, if pds bidding has shown 5+ Spades and 4+ Diamonds, but he has not..
I do understand this, if you always raise direct with 3 card support, but I did not find that in the notes.

So, why should 2 Spade here NOT show 3 Spades?

Consider the auction 1♣ - 1♠

Many people would chose to raise the 1♠ advance holding 3 card support. A protoypical example would be something like

♠ Axx
♦ x
♥ Qxxx
♣ AQJxx

Lots of folks (myself included) will raise to 2♠ on a pretty wide variety of hands. For these players, the 2♣ rebid doesn't necessarily deny three card Spade support, however, it does make it much less likely that opener holds three spades. Accordingly, its not really practical that the auction

1♣ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♦
2♠

promises three Spades

Thanks for your try, but I still don´t buy it.
I use to raise your example hand to 2 Spade too.
But the difference for me between a direct raise and a later raise is the possibility to show hands with a side shortness (direc t raise) or balanced hands (later raise).

I think, that this is of much more practical use then to raise pd in the given biddingn into a 4-2 fit.

But obviously, the overwhelming majority has other thoughts....