[cnszsun]

Scoring: IMP

ps-ps-1♦-ps
1♠-ps-??

---

[mike777]

2c


If I can just get past this round.

very common problem.

[P_Marlowe]

3D.

Some play, that 3D promises 3 card support for partners major, this
would of course be perfect.
I dont know, what they bid without 3 card support, most likely 2NT,
forcing with a 6 card suit.

Playing standard, just show your overall values and the 6th diamond
and you will be doing fine most of the time.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[the hog]

Without the use of any gadgets - 3D.

[Fluffy]

without the use of any gadgets either open 1NT or rebid 2NT now.

[rd6789]

Having opened 1D I think 3D now is best as jump-raising on 3-card support is always dodgy and it looks too strong for 2C

To open 1NT instead of 1D has appeal,

[pooltuna]

looks like a choice between 3♦ and 3♠. NV I would go for 3♦ and V I would try the riskier 3♠.

[effervesce]

I think I'll go with 2♣ as well, then correct partner's bid back to spades eg 2♦ to 2♠. The diamonds aren't good enough for 3♦ for me.

[skjaeran]

2♣ for me, practically forcing, as I play it. Very seldom plays a stupid 3-3 fit. Supporting spades next. Never 3♦ on this suit for me.

[andy_h]

Think I go with 2♣ as well

[Phil]

2♣, not 3♦. Everything else is a distortion and not worthy of consideration.

Whether or not you play 2♣ as forcing, or close to it, isn't that important.

If you consider the subset of hands that passes 3♦ and the subset that passes 2♣, they are quite similar. So why not try to get across the fact you have three spades, and nine cards in the minors?

Great problem.

[rd6789]

Phil, on Aug 26 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

2♣, not 3♦.

why not try to get across the fact you have three spades, and nine cards in the minors?

I don't understand this - 1D-1S;2C could be 0355 shape

[Phil]

rd6789, on Aug 26 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

Phil, on Aug 26 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

2♣, not 3♦.

why not try to get across the fact you have three spades, and nine cards in the minors?

I don't understand this - 1D-1S;2C could be 0355 shape

It could be 6-6 too. What is your point?

[rd6789]

i thought you implied 2C showed 3 card spade support as you said "why not try to get across the fact you have three spades, and nine cards in the minors" ?

[Phil]

rd6789, on Aug 26 2009, 12:44 PM, said:

i thought you implied 2C showed 3 card spade support as you said "why not try to get across the fact you have three spades, and nine cards in the minors" ?

No. My hope is to raise spades later (if given the chance).

Of course 2♣ doesn't show 3 card spade support, thats silly. I think newer players read posts about Gazzilli and Cole and it screws them up.

[ArtK78]

2♣ now, intending to raise spades strongly later.

Not 3♦ even if my diamonds were better than this, as I do not want to emphasize playing in diamonds - I want to emphasize playing in spades, even on a 4-3. But I do not want to imply that I have 4 spades by raising directly to 3♠, which is what my hand is worth.

The idea of opening this hand 1NT cannot be taken seriously.

[Jlall]

Don't really do this nearly as often as I used to but 2C.

[quiddity]

3S for me. I don't like the diamond suit opposite a singleton and I think it risks a pass when 4S is on. The cards are too prime and the hand too shapely for 2NT.

I think 2C runs a real risk of partner passing because:
- partner is a passed hand;
- the diamonds are significantly longer than the clubs (so partner will likely hold longer clubs than diamonds);
- where are the hearts? Partner could easily hold 5-4 or 5-5 in the majors and pass out the "misfit". He might do this with a decent hand, which would be a disaster.

[aguahombre]

not only is 2c a time-honored improvisation with this and similar difficult rebids, but I believe it was made into an actual convention by Murray/Kehela way back. It might have been Kokish and someone, though...my memory fades.

[the hog]

Phil, on Aug 26 2009, 10:57 PM, said:

2♣, not 3♦. Everything else is a distortion and not worthy of consideration.

Whether or not you play 2♣ as forcing, or close to it, isn't that important.

If you consider the subset of hands that passes 3♦ and the subset that passes 2♣, they are quite similar. So why not try to get across the fact you have three spades, and nine cards in the minors?

Great problem.

And 2C is not a distortion, Phil? Sorry , but this is a lol.