[MinorKid]

---

---Edited at 16:45 20/02/2014---
Choices has been added at 16:45 20/02/2014

[manudude03]

2D just for a simpler auction.

[helene_t]

Is a 3♥ splinter an option? We are strong enough to move over a sign-off in 3NT I think. Partner can still sign off in 4NT, then, if he really doesn't like it.

[Cyberyeti]

3♣ fit for preference, otherwise 2♦, we play 3♥ splinter as specifically a void.

[Trinidad]

Where are you planning to go, bidding 2♣?
Partner has 4 diamonds, unless he has 3 meaning that he has only 2 clubs. The only hand that partner could have opposite which I would want to be in clubs is a 0454 hand.

I would set the trump suit first by bidding 2♦. Then we can see what kind of hand partner has. That allows for an easy auction. The auction is forcing as long as you don't bid 2NT or 3♦ and game forcing as soon as you bid beyond 3♦.

If you bid 2♣, it will be difficult to still show your diamond support and force to game and keep NT contracts in the picture. (Think of partner rebidding 2♦ or 2NT. Do you really want to rebid 4♦?)

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Trinidad, on 2014-February-19, 04:13, said:

Where are you planning to go, bidding 2♣?

The reason for bidding 2♣ would be to follow up with a slam try in diamonds to enable partner to evaluate better than an inverted minor auction. Similarly with helene's 3♥ splinter. Starting with 2♦ is ok if we can follow up with a call that shows good clubs or short hearts but in that case we have probably not gained any space (and possibly lost space) over the initial action. Obviously it depends on our inverted structure but the question is whether we can eveluate our holdings more effectively after this start - with a generic IM structure the answer is probably not. Beginning with 2♦ would be a simpler auction if we were not prepared to move beyond 3NT but surely that is not the case here.

[Trinidad]

Zelandakh, on 2014-February-19, 05:52, said:

The reason for bidding 2♣ would be to follow up with a slam try in diamonds to enable partner to evaluate better than an inverted minor auction.

I think it is a little premature to commit to a slam try in diamonds when we are not sure of a diamond fit yet.

Zelandakh, on 2014-February-19, 05:52, said:

Beginning with 2♦ would be a simpler auction if we were not prepared to move beyond 3NT but surely that is not the case here.

I see it a little differently: I am certainly prepared to not move beyond 3NT when partner shows a misfitting minimum with heart values.

Partner could have:
♠Axxx
♥KJxx
♦Axx
♣xx

Opposite that I don't want to be any higher than 3NT.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2014-February-19, 08:03, said:

I see it a little differently: I am certainly prepared to not move beyond 3NT when partner shows a misfitting minimum with heart values.

Partner could have:
♠Axxx
♥KJxx
♦Axx
♣xx

Opposite that I don't want to be any higher than 3NT.

Rik

Your partner can hold this, mine can't, don't know about the OP's. Is it common to play a 10+ inverted minor (rather than GF) opposite a potentially <4 card suit ?

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-February-19, 08:30, said:

Your partner can hold this, mine can't, don't know about the OP's. Is it common to play a 10+ inverted minor (rather than GF) opposite a potentially <4 card suit ?

The OP's conditions are what they are, and seem to make this situation extremely difficult. I believe, however, that it is more common for inverted raises to be inv+ rather than g.f. ---but a significant part of that group have dumped 10 and agree 11+ in support of the minor. Opening bids usually don't have a floor of 13 today.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2014-February-19, 09:51, said:

The OP's conditions are what they are, and seem to make this situation extremely difficult. I believe, however, that it is more common for inverted raises to be inv+ rather than g.f. ---but a significant part of that group have dumped 10 and agree 11+ in support of the minor. Opening bids usually don't have a floor of 13 today.

The OP doesn't say what the diamond shows, it makes a big difference if he's playing 5542, 5533 or something else, I just found the suggestion of non GF with a 4 card suit opposite a potentially 3 card diamond unusual. (I play 9+ with 5 or 10+ with 4, but I know I'm facing 4 diamonds, but am trying to use the OP's conditions, I'd just like to know exactly what I might be facing).

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-February-19, 08:30, said:

Your partner can hold this, mine can't, don't know about the OP's. Is it common to play a 10+ inverted minor (rather than GF) opposite a potentially <4 card suit ?

I don't know what the OP can have. But it is pretty common to play inverted minors as invitational or better, also opposite a potentially 3 card minors (or even 2 card clubs).

Rik

[gszes]

Focusing on possible future bidding continuations should make this problem
a bit easier so we are going to look at 3c and 3d rebids later on in the
bidding.
Starting with 2d and later bidding 3c (if available) no matter how the
bidding has gone has to be a suggestion that clubs is a viable spot to
play. xx x AQxx KJTxxx is a hand that would prefer to start with 2d and
rebid 3c as a suggestion to play if p bids 2H/S/N.
Starting with 2c then later bidding 3d(if available) no matter how the bidding
has gone has to be showing game forcing values since it is impossible to go back
to clubs at the 3 level.

[whereagles]

In some bidding schemes the sequences

1♦ 2♣
2♦ 3♦

1♦ 2♣
2NT 3♦

are forcing. The rule here is "2/1 followed by support is GF" (even if a plain 2/1 is not GF).

That seems to be adequate for this hand, since we're a bit too strong for a splinter (unlimited splinters opposite unlimited openers is asking for trouble.. trust me ).

[aguahombre]

whereagles, on 2014-February-20, 07:10, said:

In some bidding schemes the sequences

1♦ 2♣
2♦ 3♦

1♦ 2♣
2NT 3♦

are forcing. The rule here is "2/1 followed by support is GF" (even if a plain 2/1 is not GF).

That seems to be adequate for this hand, since we're a bit too strong for a splinter (unlimited splinters opposite unlimited openers is asking for trouble.. trust me ).

2/1 followed by support should be gf in your opinion and mine; but it isn't in (for instance) SAYC.

1S-2C
2D-2S is a mere 2-card preference and doesn't commit to game.

But, if that is the OP's understanding, certainly

1D-2C
2N-3D would be the way to go.

BTW, splintering 3H over 1D would indeed be asking for trouble with even a narrow range unless discussed.

Some of us might think it shows a lot of hearts.

[MinorKid]

aguahombre, on 2014-February-20, 09:52, said:

2/1 followed by support should be gf in your opinion and mine; but it isn't in (for instance) SAYC.

1S-2C
2D-2S is a mere 2-card preference and doesn't commit to game.

But, if that is the OP's understanding, certainly

1D-2C
2N-3D would be the way to go.

BTW, splintering 3H over 1D would indeed be asking for trouble with even a narrow range unless discussed.

Some of us might think it shows a lot of hearts.

Brian Senior Suggest that support of a minor after other-minor response is game-forcing. But he is playing ACOL.

[MinorKid]

---