[mich-b]

Scoring: MP

1♦-(1♥)-?

---

Playing 2/1 , 1♦ can be 3 only with 44Majors, otherwise 4+.

What is your choice ?
And specifically what do you think about 2♦?

[whereagles]

I like 2♦. The playing strength is adequate for the 4-3 fit and I doubt pard has the 4-4-3-2 hand.

It sure beats pass

[Codo]

I guess that 2 ♦ would lead to a 8 or more card fit quite often. So it would work as long as partner has no descissson to make what to do after a highet level prempt. In this case, he can failheavily when he expects more then xxx in trumps.

I would bid 2 club, playing NFB and 2 diamond else.

[655321]

I think 2♦ is clearly the right bid.

[Poky]

I don't like 2♦.

If 1♠ is 4+ spades, I have a clear double.
If double is 4+ spades, I have a clear 1♠ (0-3 spades) bid.

[gnasher]

Unlike some of the other commentators, I'm going to assume that you're asking this question in the context of a system which doesn't have a ready-made bid for this hand.

I'd bid 2♦, planning to compete with 3♣. A 7-card fit will probably play well enough. A 6-card fit might be more awkward, but it won't happen that often and they won't always let us play there when it does - they do have an eight-card spade fit.

[MFA]

I find it absolutely clearcut to bid 2♦.

[jdonn]

I never, ever raise diamonds on 3 here. Partner simply overcompetes, it's almost a guarantee. Sure if everyone is barred over 2♦ it will work fine, but they aren't, especially not partner. This is not just an irrational fear on my part, I have seen it happen so many times.

[mike777]

mich-b, on May 11 2009, 08:27 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

1♦-(1♥)-?

---

Playing 2/1 , 1♦ can be 3 only with 44Majors, otherwise 4+.

What is your choice ?
And specifically what do you think about 2♦?

pass wtp?

why mislead partner about our length?