[Fluffy]

E-W Vulnerable

-W - N -E - S
1♣-1♠-ps-2♥
3♣-3 ♦-ps-??

♠Ax
♥AQ109xx
♦Jx
♣xxx

[P_Marlowe]

3S, partner did ask you to give preference,
2H was nf, but it certainly was not garbage, so
with 3S you show more or less what you hold.

If you believe 3S is an underbid go ahhead and bid
4S, but beawre, that partner will get forced in clubs.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

I'd bid 4♣, choice of game. 3♠ is certainly not unreasonable. Especially if 2♥ was forcing. In that case I've showed pretty much what I have already.

[FrancesHinden]

If 2H was non-forcing, 3D shows extras and I would bid game in spades.
If 2H was forcing, 3D doesn't particularly show extra strength, although implies extra diamond length. Now it's much closer between 3S and 4S.

[jtfanclub]

Fluffy, on Jun 15 2007, 06:24 AM, said:

E-W Vulnerable

-W - N -E - S
1♣-1♠-ps-2♥
3♣-3 ♦-ps-??

♠Ax
♥AQ109xx
♦Jx
♣xxx

I play 2♥ as constructive non-forcing, which makes this hand on the low end.

With some partners, I would bid 3♥, because we have the understanding that that also shows spade tolerence (without it, I'd pass 3 clubs). I'd rather play in the 6-2 than the 5-2 particularly since, as somebody else mentioned, partner is going to get forced in clubs. Also, I think hearts are more likely to split than spades- if RHO had 4 hearts, he could X 1 spade with a minimal count. If he had 4 spades, he would pass 1 spade.

The more I think about it, the more I like 3♥.

[Apollo81]

What style of 2♥ are you playing? Forcing? NFConst? NF? My knee jerk reaction would be 3♠ with this hand; I usually play NFConst.

[mikeh]

The standard NA treatment of 2♥ is that it was forcing: certainly, I think that is the BWS (Bridge World Standard) treatment and BWS is a consensus system compiled from input from a large number of experts/serious players. Of course, regional and individual treatments vary, and, as has been pointed out, the choice of call here depends on what you've shown already.

I would not choose 4♣, choice of games, because my partners would almost certainly take that as a cue agreeing ♦s... altho I like the COG use..on this hand. Give me xx AQxxxx AJxx x, and I'd prefer the cue meaning, altho one can imagine untangling some auctions if he took it a COG and I bid again over 4Major.

Not knowing what 3♥ showed, I vote with Frances

[Halo]

I like the idea of bidding 3H here (with implied spade support). It's true that the three small clubs in my hand are a downer, but then partner could struggle to get full value out my hand playing in spades.

[jdonn]

Halo, on Jun 15 2007, 10:33 AM, said:

I like the idea of bidding 3H here (with implied spade support). It's true that the three small clubs in my hand are a downer, but then partner could struggle to get full value out my hand playing in spades.

I actually don't mind 3♥ at all, in fact I'm surprised everyone is going to spades instead of rebidding this very good heart suit. However, in what world does 3♥ imply spade support?

[P_Marlowe]

mikeh, on Jun 15 2007, 10:25 AM, said:

The standard NA treatment of 2♥ is that it was forcing: certainly, I think that is the BWS (Bridge World Standard) treatment and BWS is a consensus system compiled from input from a large number of experts/serious players.
<snip>

But those eperts were manly from NA.
Which is not surprising since Bridge World is
an Amercian Bridge magazine.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[skjaeran]

For me the alternatives are 3♥ and 4♣ (choice of major suit game). With ♦ support I'd make a forcing raise. 3♥ seems best to me. I don't think we're missing game if partner passes this.

[Fluffy]

our definition of 2♥ is 'forcing unless you have garbage', I think this is same as non forcing constructive.

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on Jun 15 2007, 05:07 PM, said:

Halo, on Jun 15 2007, 10:33 AM, said:

I like the idea of bidding 3H here (with implied spade support).  It's true that the three small clubs in my hand are a downer, but then partner could struggle to get full value out my hand playing in spades.

I actually don't mind 3♥ at all, in fact I'm surprised everyone is going to spades instead of rebidding this very good heart suit. However, in what world does 3♥ imply spade support?

In my world, I've already shown a decent 5-card heart suit. I haven't said anything about spade support. I prefer to tell partner I have something good in spades, than rebid 3H, which could be something like

x
KQJ10xx
Qxx
Kxx

or whatever, make the high card values whatever you think is suitable, but the point is my hand is very good for spades in context of what I've shown.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Jun 15 2007, 09:25 AM, said:

The standard NA treatment of 2♥ is that it was forcing: certainly, I think that is the BWS (Bridge World Standard) treatment and BWS is a consensus system compiled from input from a large number of experts/serious players.

That's wrong. The default is

Quote

After our simple overcall of a one-bid:
(a) [default]A new-suit bid by an unpassed advancer is natural and nonforcing in all cases.

BWS 2001, VI.C

[whereagles]

I would bid 3♥. I think there's a good chance pard has Hx of hearts on this bidding.

[jtfanclub]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 15 2007, 12:42 PM, said:

In my world, I've already shown a decent 5-card heart suit. I haven't said anything about spade support. I prefer to tell partner I have something good in spades, than rebid 3H, which could be something like

x
KQJ10xx
Qxx
Kxx

And in the world I come from, I smile and say "Good luck partner" as I put my hand down. I'm perfectly happy with playing at 3 diamonds- why shouldn't I be? If partner didn't want to play in 3 diamonds across Qxx in diamonds, he wouldn't have bid them. 3♥ might be worth a little more, but it's far more dangerous.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Jun 15 2007, 04:23 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 15 2007, 12:42 PM, said:

In my world, I've already shown a decent 5-card heart suit.  I haven't said anything about spade support.  I prefer to tell partner I have something good in spades, than rebid 3H, which could be something like

x
KQJ10xx
Qxx
Kxx

And in the world I come from, I smile and say "Good luck partner" as I put my hand down. I'm perfectly happy with playing at 3 diamonds- why shouldn't I be? If partner didn't want to play in 3 diamonds across Qxx in diamonds, he wouldn't have bid them. 3♥ might be worth a little more, but it's far more dangerous.

3♥ dangerous?? I might bid 4♥. A♠ AK♦ and partner is 5-5 and you make.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Jun 15 2007, 08:45 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jun 15 2007, 10:25 AM, said:

The standard NA treatment of 2♥ is that it was forcing: certainly, I think that is the BWS (Bridge World Standard) treatment and BWS is a consensus system compiled from input from a large number of experts/serious players.

That's not true, in fact I had this same argument with jdonn like 2 years ago when he insisted 2H forcing is standard. It's strange, it seems like a very regional thing though even in USA, I know of no expert from texas who plays this as forcing.

I do not remember that at all lol, though I don't doubt I said that. I truly have no idea how a random partner will take it nowadays but I think NF is more common, and that yes it's very regional.

[whereagles]

The standard around here is "new suit after overcall is forcing except a 2/1, which is constructive but NF. At 3 level it is GF".