[bd71]

---

Both sides playing 2/1. You have no two-suited bid available (does anybody in this situation?).

Your bid?

[Codo]

I have two suited bids avaiable but never the opportunity to use them.
I try 4 ♦ now and 4 or 5 ♠ over 4 or 5 ♥

[ggwhiz]

You could double to show diamonds and bid spades next in case you find pard with long spades and short diamonds.

Pretty cheeky to treat it as our hand after a 2♣ opener but could be fun to yank their chain. Codo's approach is probably best.

[gszes]

after a 2c opener noone needs to wast serious time searching for slam if it is our
hand we merely bid game where it belongs and dont mess around. Our hand will
probably make for a good sac in diamonds or less likely in spades IF p has a
reasonable fit for diamonds. Every bid that is not game after opps open 2c should be
geared toward asking p if a sac is reasonable. With this in mind we have a 2n bid
which can be used with any 2 suited hand (cant be natural) but there is too much
disparity btn our suits to use 2n. I think 3d is a much better solution overall which
adds some preemptive value and still leaves room for p to sac if their hand is
appropriate.



Yes indeed we will "miss" some dandy spade games of course the opps will probably be
able to bid enough so we never get to play 4s anyway. If p can get a 4d/5d bid in we can then
bid spades to suggest an alternative sac but only after we have checked with our primary suit.



The key is to realize that if p does not fit dia the odds of our having a reasonable sacrifice hand
plummet precipitously.

[bgm]

If you play Truscott defense then it is possible to use X = ♦ + ♠
(non-touching suits, one of them is the last ART suit bid by opp)

[gnasher]

I might bid 4♦ and then pass, or I might start with 3♦ and then decide whether to bid 4♠ depending on the auction.

I don't like 4♦ followed by 4♠, because I won't know whether they've found a fit or been propelled by my preempt into the wrong contract.

[CSGibson]

4♦, no later action. But I do also have two suited bids, and I would use one of them.

[aguahombre]

The problem with a systemic double, aside from the suit disparity, is that it doesn't interfere yet.

[rmnka447]

Since in my partnerships we play CRASH over strong 1 ♣ bids, we also play it over strong 2 ♣ openers, too. Systemically then, my bid is 2 NT which shows the pointed suits (♦, ♠) or rounded suits (♣, ♥).

If there is no agreement about 2 suited bids, I'd simply bid 3 ♦ if partner will take it as ♦. Otherwise, I'd bid 4 ♦ with the hand.

[Siegmund]

I suppose I am the only one who is considering 2S now, and perhaps 5D later if they bid 4H and partner fails to raise the spades.

Not sure I should be considering it. But I would rather partner lead a spade than a diamond, if we find ourselves defending a high-level contract.

[Free]

I'd start with 3♦ and later bid ♠ at 4-level or lower.

[CamHenry]

bd71, on 2013-March-28, 05:35, said:

---

Both sides playing 2/1. You have no two-suited bid available (does anybody in this situation?).

Your bid?

I quite like 4N - two places to play. Partner's not going to take this as ace-asking, or as to play, so we're safe.