[gwnn]

KQ943
A73
63
JT5

1♦-1♠
2♣

Partner could have 4♦5♣, followups are vanilla standard.

[TylerE]

2♠. Don't have enough for 4SF, and I'd like a better heart holding (and in context, I'd consider KJx better) for 2NT.

[Lobowolf]

I don't like 2♠. Partner's advertising an unbalanced hand, and the short suit is probably spades; I'd expect a 3-card raise on a 3-1-4-5 or 3-1-5-4 hand. I agree with your comments respect to 2NT, but it'd still be my second choice. Instead, though, I'll take the false preference to 2♦; on a good day, partner has longer diamonds or the strength to take a third bid. If we're in a crummy fit, at least I have extra values to compensate.

[mike777]

gwnn, on Nov 12 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

KQ943
A73
63
JT5

1♦-1♠
2♣

Partner could have 4♦5♣, followups are vanilla standard.

2d, very common auction.

[TimG]

gwnn, on Nov 12 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

Partner could have 4♦5♣, followups are vanilla standard.

I think this is something of a red herring; you shouldn't really base your actions on the possibility that partner has done something a little unusual. If partner opened 1♦ with 45 in the minors, it was because he thought he could handle the auction.

[Lobowolf]

TimG, on Nov 12 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

gwnn, on Nov 12 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

Partner could have 4♦5♣, followups are vanilla standard.

I think this is something of a red herring; you shouldn't really base your actions on the possibility that partner has done something a little unusual. If partner opened 1♦ with 45 in the minors, it was because he thought he could handle the auction.

Or because he thought he couldn't handle the auction if he started with 1♣. If partner has a minimum hand, the false preference might very well get you to a 4-2 fit when you have a 5-3 club fit available. On balance, though, I think 2♦ solves more problems than it creates. Add the jack of hearts, though, and I'm bidding 2NT.

[han]

I hate these hands, maybe I can buy time by asking for the form of scoring?

[gwnn]

Imps, i don't remember the vulnerability.

I don't think mentioning that she could have 4♦5♣ is a red herring. Imagine that you know for a fact that she opens 1♦ about twice as often as a North American. If you don't think this is relevant (for example you say that only happens 1% of the time, so she does it 2% of the time and you don't think that's often enough to matter), you can just ignore the comment. I don't think if I post a hand and it is obviously right to do something no matter what vulnerability and I give the vulnerability, that will be a red herring.

[han]

I agree it is relevant to the situation and it certainly can't hurt.

It's a slight overbid but I'm going for 2NT.

[helene_t]

Agree with Mike777 and Lobowolf.

[whereagles]

I'll go with a simple 2♦. Pard, with 15+, will make one final effort in 2NT or 2♠, to which I'll oblige.

If I feel lucky, I'll try 2NT (pard is encouraged to support spades with 3, on the way to 3NT) or a FSF if it's just forcing for 1 round.

[ASkolnick]

I'll bid 2♥ which is a transfer to spades showing a 5th spade and invitational values. I am setting up for this auction well. If partner does not bid 2S, I can either play in the appropriate 3 level.

[gwnn]

Quote

I'll bid 2♥ which is a transfer to spades showing a 5th spade and invitational values.

No it's not.

[rogerclee]

I would bid 2♦, don't hate 2N.

[awm]

I think this is one of the many substantial losses for the style of opening 1♦ and rebidding 2♣ with 4-5 in the minors. The "textbook" bid seems to be 2♦, which is fine if you can assume that partner has 5+♦ virtually all the time (okay 1444 maybe). But if this sequence is normal with shapes like 1345, 2245 then the odds of playing a 4-2 fit go up substantially.

I don't like playing 4-2 fits so I will make the slight overbid of 2NT. I'll note that if I was playing a strong club (in which case partner had to bid 1♦...2♣ with 4-5 in the minors) then I would pass 2♣, highly unlikely to miss a game because we have at most 15+10=25 high and no fit.

[Codo]

gwnn, on Nov 13 2008, 06:40 AM, said:

Quote

I'll bid 2♥ which is a transfer to spades showing a 5th spade and invitational values.

No it's not.

I bid 2 ♥ showing exactly 5323 with 9 HCPS, include some High Cards in the majors WTP?

If I lack this mandatory agreement, I go with the slightly overbid of 2 NT. I always play better then any of my partners... They never agree on this fact, but what do they know.

[1eyedjack]

With a full-blown 2N bid I always bid 3N anyway, so it might be playable for 2N to show a point lighter than classical.

[ASkolnick]

Gwnn, for me and my partner it is since I have that agreement with partner. It works well since it gives you both the invitational and the forcing hands together. But if it was what people normally play.

I also play 1D,1X,2C as forcing as well, but with this hand it would not matter.
However, I think you should bid 2D since if partner can't make another call. you don't have game.

[FrancesHinden]

If I am playing FSF as a one-round force I would bid 2H and pass a minimum rebid by opener.

If I play that partner can't be 45 in the minors, I would bid 2D.

Assuming that FSF is game forcing, and that partner opens 1D with all 1345 hands, I bid 2NT. Let's hope we play sound opening bids.

[kenrexford]

This is an auction that advertises for a convention I used to play (and liked a lot), where a 2♦ opening showed 9+ in the minors (no 4-card majors) and about 14-16 HCP (intermediate). That convention would allow me to comfortably pass 2♣ in this sequence.

Without that bid, I make an unfortunate courtesy correction of 2♦ and live with it.