[Cascade]

The auction

1♥ (Dbl) Pass (1♠)
Dbl (Pass) ?

Your style:

Fairly heavy 1-level openings at the top end;

Responder bids over the double -

1♠ on many hands with four spades and 6+ points

1NT on most hands with a few useful values and reasonably balanced (could be 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-3-1)

Negative freebids of 2♣/♦ almost always a six-card suit

XX any strong hand with a minor;

Opener's double is for takeout - either moderate values with spade shortage (classic takeout) or any very strong hand but not too distributional.

What do you think a 3♦ bid should look like?

[OleBerg]

Voted: "any 5+ diamonds with some (4-5 hcp) useful cards"

Basicly it's any hand that is ready to bid 3♦ over 2♠, and has a distribtuion that expects it.

[Codo]

To me the most useful approach would be a hand where I do not need space for searching for the best strain but where my bid is a real statement about my suit.

So I would go for really long diamonds, too weak for a NFB- like hand 1.

When I have some values and just 5 diamonds, there is a possibility that we need some room to explore for other strains, so I would use 2 Diamond to show 4 or 5 diamonds and scattered values.

[OleBerg]

Codo, on Apr 24 2009, 12:50 PM, said:

To me the most useful approach would be a hand where I do not need space for searching for the best strain but where my bid is a real statement about my suit.

So I would go for really long diamonds, too weak for a NFB- like hand 1.

When I have some values and just 5 diamonds, there is a possibility that we need some room to explore for other strains, so I would use 2 Diamond to show 4 or 5 diamonds and scattered values.

So what do you bid with 5 diamonds and no values?

[miguelm]

Not knowing what a 3D bid would be in first round (assuming WJS) IMHO this has to be done based on suit, so I voted for the first option... with the same hand and the 4/5 points probably would have bid 3D earlier

[gnasher]

I think it implies game interest, so either of the first two, or somewhere in between with a six-card suit. KJxxx and nothing else would be too weak, because game is more-or-less impossible.

[whereagles]

I would take it as something like

xx
x
JT9xxxx
xxx

Insufficient for a negative free bid, but shapely enough for the 3 level.

[benlessard]

I like to play that over the double bid at the 2 level arent forcing 4-10, while bid at the 1 and 3 level are forcing. So passing and bidding show 0-3 pts and long diamonds.

[dake50]

As I play xfers, 2C would show D-Jxxxxx and out: passing acceptance; D-KQJxx would have H-support as help-suit raise or NT with S-stop or 3D next.

[jdonn]

KQxxx sounds like enough to me, even xxxx xx KQxxx xx. KJxxx is close but I would also jump. So having said that before reading the options, I think somewhere between 2 and 3 in that the diamonds would tend to at least have an honor.

[cherdanno]

I think it hints at a spade suit with 3 or 4 small - a hand that improves when partner has short spades.

[Fluffy]

I think the main problem is to decide is this is constructive bid or not.

5♦ looks like a too long shot to take, and if it is to be played partner is probably having 3 level safety to move on over 2♦.

3NT is unlikelly on this sequence.

Because of that I'd say the constructive aproach is less useful than the preemptive one.

So I'd say 3♦ is more like Qxxxxx.

----

Note: before analysing the facts my first impression was that 3♦ would be both constructive and preemptive, something like KJ10xxx.