[frank0]

Your side is red, partner open 1♠ and you have
♠Ax
♥QT
♦AKJTxx
♣Kxx

1♠-2♦-2♥-3♦-3♥-?

What's next?

[Free]

3♠ leaves most options open and shows ♠Hx imo.

[gwnn]

Is it too much to ask for a proper layout?

1♠-2♦
2♥-3♦
3♥-?

I agree with 3♠.

[mck4711]

I assume that shown bidding is our sequence, without interference of opps.

IMO 3♦ is a gross underbid. After p has shown a weak opening and no fit, repeating your own suit shows 6+cards and is not forcing. Your p may pass. I think a better answer is 3♣ - FSF, and in this sequence GF. It gives p the opportunity to describe his hand once more:
3♦: 3card-support in ♦, meaning he has something like 5431
3♥: likely 5-5 in ♠ and ♥ and no ♦-support
3♠: no stopper in ♣, no ♦-support
3NT: stopper in ♣

Depending on his answer you can continue accordingly. Maybe your best spot is 3NT, maybe 6♦, maybe even a 5-2 fit in ♠ or ♥.

EDIT:
Just realized that it is mentioned 2 over 1 GF. In this case a prefer a simple 3NT. NT is played from right side and if p has nothing in ♣ I have good chances to take my tricks before opps can do.

[han]

4NT should be quantitative in this auction. That doesn't mean that I would bid it, but I think that it is better than 3NT.

[EricK]

What would 3♥ have shown by pard on previous round? If the answer is 5/5 plus extras, then I think 3NT is reasonable now. If it would have been a splinter in support of ♦ (which I don't like, but understand it is the more popular treatment), then 3NT looks like an underbid. On the other hand, 3♠ might make it difficult for pard to bid 3NT, especially as you would bid 3♠ with xxx in ♣ instead of Kxx; and 4NT is a bit precipitate with such a meagre ♣ stopper.

I'm not an expert on 2/1 (as may be apparent from the previous paragraph!). What would 2NT or 3♣ have shown on previous round. Does 2NT deny 6♦? Does 3♣ promise 4, show a fragment, or just ask pard to carry on bidding? Depending on the meaning of those, pard might draw some inference from my failure to use either of those sequences, which might help the decision now. If I had bid 2NT on previous round, I would be very happy with 3♠ now for instance - but will pard assume I don't have a ♣ stopper because I didn't use that route?

[frank0]

Free and gwnn: I think 3♠ is a good choice also, after that if my partner keep bidding spade, is that showing extra strength(6-card), willing to play 5-2, or just nothing else to say?

Mck4711: Thanks for the advise, but I think our agreement is 1♠-3♦ is WJS, 1♠-1NT-2♥-3♦ is invitation 6+ and 2 over 1 100% forcing to 3NT at least. I don't even know we have 4th suit forcing there.

Han: 4NT would be made exactly, partner put down ♠xxxxxxx ♥AK9xx ♦Q, lead was ♠K and your RHO has ♥Jxxx
Unfortuantely I was in 6NT

EricK: about 1♠-2♦-3♥, I haven't discussed with my partner about it but could you give a little bit more reason on why you don't like to treat it as splinter?

[Elianna]

frank0, on 2011-October-19, 19:22, said:

Free and gwnn: I think 3♠ is a good choice also, after that if my partner keep bidding spade, is that showing extra strength(6-card), willing to play 5-2, or just nothing else to say?

Han: 4NT would be made exactly, partner put down ♠xxxxxxx ♥AK9xx ♦Q, lead was ♠K and your RHO has ♥Jxxx
Unfortuantely I was in 6NT

If spades break 2-2, 6 spades looks pretty nice. I'm really tired, so I may be wrong about that.

[mike777]

frank0, on 2011-October-19, 00:29, said:

Your side is red, partner open 1♠ and you have
♠Ax
♥QT
♦AKJTxx
♣Kxx

1♠-2♦-2♥-3♦-3♥-?

What's next?

I can live with 3s or 4nt(quant)

[mcphee]

While 3NT may be a spot we can play I see no great reason for not just bidding 3S and see if dear partner can make some constructive move, like 4C for example making 6S look better and better. 3N is not a sensible bid even though we do hold a C stop, it is a very thin stop if partner has no help in C, we may have to knock out a major suit card before we can reach 9 tricks, that would be shameful when 4S is a claim.

[EricK]

frank0, on 2011-October-19, 19:22, said:

EricK: about 1♠-2♦-3♥, I haven't discussed with my partner about it but could you give a little bit more reason on why you don't like to treat it as splinter?

The trouble with 2/1 auctions in 2/1 GF is that often neither player finds it easy to show extras. So after 2 or three rounds each player has a great idea of their partner's distribution, but little or no idea of exactly how strong they are. In very simple terms, 13v13 is game; 17v17 is slam; and 13v17 is game or slam depending on degree of fit, number of controls etc. If the player(s) with extras can't show that, their partner can never be sure it is OK to bid on. It is very acute on slightly misfitting hands, because you often want to play these in 3NT, and that is the game that leaves the smallest amount of room for exploration.

This hand is a good example of the problems. If opener can jump to 3♥ to show a strong 5-5 and go via 2♥ 3♥ to show a minimum 5-5, then you are well placed in either scenario. If they have to go via 2♥ then 3♥ to show any 5-5 you are facing the very problem you have presented us with. Whereas raising to 3♦ on any hand with support (whether or not it has a singleton) presents you with fewer problems (IMO) as now you know there is a fit, there is less need to find out partner's strength below 3NT.

As an aside, I don't like partner's opening bid on the hand you gave.!