[bid_em_up]

---

Partner opens 1D, and rebids 2D over your 1S bid. Opps are silent.

How do you proceed?

[kenrexford]

3♥, showing 5-5 and GF. But, 3♥ might not be GF for some.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

depending on system either 2H (my vote, as long as it
is forcing and natural) or 3H.
I will treat this hand as an inv. with 5-5 in the mayors.
If you open pretty sound, you can of course force to game,
but 5D is a long way to go.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[skjaeran]

2♥, natural F1. Planning to GF this, even vs a light opener. But prefer to go slowly.

[kenrexford]

skaeran, on Jul 16 2008, 03:57 PM, said:

2♥, natural F1. Planning to GF this, even vs a light opener. But prefer to go slowly.

I am somewhat surprised that you take this option of going slowly and then GF.

This suggests to me that a direct 3♥ by you would also be 5-5 and GF. I cannot imagine that you have two ways to show the exact same hand -- that would be rather redundant and unlike you.

So, I'll assume that a route showing GF with hearts and spades through 2♥ is different than a simple 5-5 and GF. What is that difference for you, when you do have specifically 5-5?

The difference cannot be pattern, because of the obvious -- you do have 5-5.

Is the difference the void? Is 3♥, when specifically 5-5, limited to 5521/5512 hands?

Or, is the difference some range issue? That would seem odd, as I would imagine that the precise one-timer bid would normally be expected to show bare GF to moderate GF, the F-ing around approach reserved for the very stronger hands.

I could not possibly use that approach, because aything but 3♥ with 5-5 would be either not GF or not 5-5, or perhaps some mega-huge take over hand, but I sure ain't got that.

[mikeh]

This sequence, as with the sequence 1♣ 1 major 2♣ is a difficult area in standard bidding, and I expect that most serious partnerships have methods for both.. thus it is common, in the 1♣ 2♣ sequence to use 2♦ as artificial, F1 or better.

In a similar vein, I have used 2♥ in the OP sequence as artificial, forcing. This requires some further agreements to untangle various hand types.

But absent specialized agreements.... I just sat down with a player I knew to be expert and generally familiar with 'standard' bidding by NA standards (I don't know enough about other standards to be comfortable guessing what bids mean).. I'd assume that 2♥ was to be understood as natural, but that opener won't be blasting to 4♥ just in case. I wouldn't have any clue whether he'd take 3♥ as forcing or nf.. I like it as forcing 5-5 but that's because I have that agreement in place in my partnerships, not because I think it is standard.

So I will bid 2♥.... in fact I would bid 2♥ even if I felt that 3♥ would be understood as intended... I intend to gf this hand.

Why? Because partner's 2♦ promises either 6+ diamonds or 4 hearts.. In either case, my hand is much, much stronger than an invitational bid.

At the same time, it isn't strong enough to bid 3♥ and pull 3N to 4♦.. yes, that would be a wonderful description of shape, but far too strong a slam try. Plus, after 3♥ - 3♠, is it clear that 4♦ is an attempt to set trump as opposed to a cue, such as AKJ10x KQxxx Ax x? If you don't like that example, I am sure you can come up with a hand on which a cue might make sense.

[Hanoi5]

If I don't find a fit in a Major I don't have a problem playing 5♦

[655321]

2♥ planning to force to game.

In the absence of specific agreements about gadgets for this hand type, I would not consider any other bid.

[skjaeran]

kenrexford, on Jul 17 2008, 01:04 AM, said:

skaeran, on Jul 16 2008, 03:57 PM, said:

2♥, natural F1. Planning to GF this, even vs a light opener. But prefer to go slowly.

I am somewhat surprised that you take this option of going slowly and then GF.

This suggests to me that a direct 3♥ by you would also be 5-5 and GF. I cannot imagine that you have two ways to show the exact same hand -- that would be rather redundant and unlike you.

So, I'll assume that a route showing GF with hearts and spades through 2♥ is different than a simple 5-5 and GF. What is that difference for you, when you do have specifically 5-5?

The difference cannot be pattern, because of the obvious -- you do have 5-5.

Is the difference the void? Is 3♥, when specifically 5-5, limited to 5521/5512 hands?

Or, is the difference some range issue? That would seem odd, as I would imagine that the precise one-timer bid would normally be expected to show bare GF to moderate GF, the F-ing around approach reserved for the very stronger hands.

I could not possibly use that approach, because aything but 3♥ with 5-5 would be either not GF or not 5-5, or perhaps some mega-huge take over hand, but I sure ain't got that.

The difference is that I've got a nice fit for partners suit here.
And I can't bid 1♠....3♥ and then rebid 4♦ over partners 3NT, that would show a stronger hand than this.

[pclayton]

2♥. Worth an upgrade with the diamond support. Too good for 3♥ (inv).

[andy_h]

I've got a pretty good hand for partner, so I will take the low road of 2H first and see what develops.

[gnasher]

2♥. Unsuitable for a 3♥ splinter.

[Edmunte1]

- 2♥ (upgrading);
- Over 1♦-1M-2♦ we lost a lot of bidding space, so the development over this sequence is pretty difficult;
- I consider necessary to have an invitational hand with both majors on this sequence. I play 3♥ bid for that, and i think it should be standard;
- I've played with some success 2NT forcing over 1m-1M-2m. Thus for example:
-1♦-1M-2♦ -3♦ shows a good invitation
-1♦-1M-2♦-2NT-3♣-3♦ shows a weaker invitation
-1♦-1♠-2♦ -3♥ shows an invitational hand with 55+ majors
-1♦-1♠-2♦-2NT-3♣-3♥ shows a GF hand with 55+ majors
.........

[kenrexford]

skaeran, on Jul 16 2008, 10:45 PM, said:

The difference is that I've got a nice fit for partners suit here.
And I can't bid 1♠....3♥ and then rebid 4♦ over partners 3NT, that would show a stronger hand than this.

Not meaning to pick an argument, but what about 5♦ if partner actually bids 3NT?

[Hanoi5]

Quote

  - 2♥ (upgrading);
- Over 1♦-1M-2♦ we lost a lot of bidding space, so the development over this sequence is pretty difficult;
- I consider necessary to have an invitational hand with both majors on this sequence. I play 3♥ bid for that, and i think it should be standard;
- I've played with some success 2NT forcing over 1m-1M-2m. Thus for example:
-1♦-1M-2♦ -3♦ shows a good invitation
-1♦-1M-2♦-2NT-3♣-3♦ shows a weaker invitation
-1♦-1♠-2♦ -3♥ shows an invitational hand with 55+ majors
-1♦-1♠-2♦-2NT-3♣-3♥ shows a GF hand with 55+ majors

So 2NT would be forcing? I voted for 3♥, but then I thought, isn't 2♥ forcing, too?

[bid_em_up]

For those of you bidding 2♥, partner will bid 2♠.

For those bidding 3♥, partner will bid 3♠.

Now what?

[pclayton]

I'm kind of surprised from the comments that 3♥ shows a GF 5-5 or something else like a splinter. To me this sequence isn't much different than 1♦ - 1♠ - 1N - 3♥.

Round here, a lot of people play 2♥ as NF, although I know that isn't standard.

[Hanoi5]

I'd bid 4♠ now.

[gnasher]

After ... 2H-2S, I would play 3♦ and 3♥ as non-forcing. I'd bid 3♣, Fourth Suit Forcing.

Partner hasn't promised three spades, so the suggested 4♠ seems rather precipitate.

[skjaeran]

kenrexford, on Jul 17 2008, 01:55 PM, said:

skaeran, on Jul 16 2008, 10:45 PM, said:

The difference is that I've got a nice fit for partners suit here.
And I can't bid 1♠....3♥ and then rebid 4♦ over partners 3NT, that would show a stronger hand than this.

Not meaning to pick an argument, but what about 5♦ if partner actually bids 3NT?

No, I'd like partner to be able to suggest 4♥ with a threebagger as well!