[vuroth]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 3 2008, 12:29 PM, said:

With a sort of kenrexford hat on...

3 days late for scary costumes.

[1eyedjack]

jdonn, on Nov 3 2008, 05:55 PM, said:

3♦ makes no sense at all to me. It just endplays partner in the bidding.

Would you ever bid 3♦? And if so, what would it show?

[jdonn]

1eyedjack, on Nov 3 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 3 2008, 05:55 PM, said:

3♦ makes no sense at all to me. It just endplays partner in the bidding.

Would you ever bid 3♦? And if so, what would it show?

For me 3♦ would be a natural bid, showing 5-5 with good suits. I will say that it takes up so much room from opener, I would prefer a system that never bids 3♦ to one that bids it on this hand.

[RichMor]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 3 2008, 12:29 PM, said:

[WARNING: BIZARRE BIDDING PHILOSOPHY FOLLOWS
With a sort of kenrexford hat on, you could go even further, and play that after opener's jump shift rebid, step 1 by responder is the neutral "I don't know what to bid" bid, and the fourth suit bid is a positive bid in whatever step 1 would have been. This strikes me as quite a good method, but I don't actually play it (these auctions don't come up enough).]

Not so bizarre methinks. This is similar to the BWS default treatment after opener's reverse. Responder makes the cheapest rebid in the 4th suit or NT with a hand lacking direction. Any other rebid by responder is natural and forcing.

After opener's jump shift rebid, responder can bid 2NT as a punt - not showing or denying anything in Diamonds. That makes responder's 3♦ rebid natural in the sense of showing some Diamond values but not promising real length.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Nov 3 2008, 02:27 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Nov 3 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 3 2008, 05:55 PM, said:

3♦ makes no sense at all to me. It just endplays partner in the bidding.

Would you ever bid 3♦? And if so, what would it show?

For me 3♦ would be a natural bid, showing 5-5 with good suits. I will say that it takes up so much room from opener, I would prefer a system that never bids 3♦ to one that bids it on this hand.

I agree. However, I'd rather have 3♦ be a "super-acceptance" of clubs, actually.

[Quantumcat]

I thought any FSF, anywhere, was, "I'd like to make a bid now that would seem not forcing, however, on my next bid or bids you HAD BETTER BLOODY WELL NOT PASS, it may take a while to get my intentions across so be patient please ... and in the meantime describe your hand a bit too"

[1eyedjack]

jdonn, on Nov 3 2008, 08:27 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Nov 3 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 3 2008, 05:55 PM, said:

3♦ makes no sense at all to me. It just endplays partner in the bidding.

Would you ever bid 3♦? And if so, what would it show?

For me 3♦ would be a natural bid, showing 5-5 with good suits. I will say that it takes up so much room from opener, I would prefer a system that never bids 3♦ to one that bids it on this hand.

If ever I am dealt such a hand I will regret not having the mechanism to show it cheaply (I may yet get the opportunity via 2N-3C-3D). On that day the coin will land on its edge, I think.

Describing 3D as excessively space-consuming seems a little hyperbolic to me, particularly when 3C is barely any cheaper, providing opener with only one extra bid (3D).

That said I am persuaded that 3C is a better bid on this hand, mainly because of the 5th Heart. If opener has a robust Diamond guard it will not matter who declares NT. If he has a half-guard he will not venture NT without first looking for some help in Diamonds, typically by bidding 3D. As responder you must take care I think not to bid 3N at this stage, but your 5th Heart provides a convenient 3H bid. Opener can then bid 3N, suggesting that responder should not pass with wide open Diamonds, and so the 3N gets right-sided without responder's having to bid 3D as "4th suit".