[jillybean]

---

IMP

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

4D.

Another option is 3H / 4H, although I would assume, that 4H sets spade.
4D should make it clear, that we want to play diamonds.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mike777]

3D

[WasWinM]

I would bid 3D expecting to have to bid 4D and hoping it appears I was pushed into doing so.

[Huibertus]

Partner holding ♠ AQJX and nothing else (except 1+ ♦) with the K often being in the overcaller's hand would make this a good 5♦ losing a ♦, a ♥ and parking a ♣ on the 4th ♠.
I'm not going to linger and bid it now.

[mikeh]

Many expert and some non-expert pairs have agreements here. I play good-bad 2N in these sequences, although technically bad-good is probably superior. G-B means that if I bid 2N I have a hand that wants to compete to the 3 level but isn’t a strong hand. Since 2S is available, 2N denies spades. It will be either a minor 2 suiter or a diamond one suiter.

The corollary is that a direct 3 level bid shows significant extras. It’s not forcing, but it’s strong. So if we are playing G-B, I could bid 3D.

Does that mean that I should bid 3D? The problem is that I don’t need a diamond fit to make 5D and I am not looking for partner to bid 3N with a heart stopper…if he did, I wouldn’t know whether to sit or run, though I think sitting will very often be a disaster.

This is all moot anyway: most players don’t have GB or BG available.

In which case 3D could be far weaker than this hand, being purely competitive. So the choice is 4D or 5D. 5D is just too much for me. I’ll bid 4D and hope that partner evaluates well.

[jillybean]

I tried GB some time ago but without a serious, regularly playing partnership, forgets and misunderstandings are too frequent and costly.
2nt (pass!), 3nt, 4nt is not the way forward here.

[pescetom]

 mikeh, on 2026-May-29, 16:22, said:

Many expert and some non-expert pairs have agreements here. I play good-bad 2N in these sequences, although technically bad-good is probably superior. G-B means that if I bid 2N I have a hand that wants to compete to the 3 level but isn’t a strong hand. Since 2S is available, 2N denies spades. It will be either a minor 2 suiter or a diamond one suiter.

The corollary is that a direct 3 level bid shows significant extras. It’s not forcing, but it’s strong. So if we are playing G-B, I could bid 3D.

Does that mean that I should bid 3D? The problem is that I don’t need a diamond fit to make 5D and I am not looking for partner to bid 3N with a heart stopper…if he did, I wouldn’t know whether to sit or run, though I think sitting will very often be a disaster.

Interesting, thanks.
Why do you think B-G is probably superior?
How would it work here?

[jillybean]

3♦ is just too wimpy for this hand.
I chose 3♥, planning to bid 4♦ over any black suit response.

---

I don't know what North and East were playing, I can only bid my hand.

IMP Pairs on BBO, 6♦ not a great contract

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2026-May-30, 06:35, said:

3♦ is just too wimpy for this hand.
I chose 3♥, planning to bid 4♦ over any black suit response.

---

I don't know what North and East were playing, I can only bid my hand.

IMP Pairs on BBO, 6♦ not a great contract

6♦ is not bad, K♠ rates to be onside with the overcall, add the chance of Q♣ dropping or spades 3-3 with trumps 2-1.

[jillybean]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-May-30, 08:22, said:

6♦ is not bad, K♠ rates to be onside with the overcall, add the chance of Q♣ dropping or spades 3-3 with trumps 2-1.

So in a serious TG, 4♦/2♥ is the correct bid, but in a serious game it will be a different auction anyway.

[WasWinM]

jillybean, on 2026-May-30, 06:35, said:

3♦ is just too wimpy for this hand.
I chose 3♥, planning to bid 4♦ over any black suit response.

---

I don't know what North and East were playing, I can only bid my hand.

IMP Pairs on BBO, 6♦ not a great contract

Here's what I was thinking based on the bidding: partner's negative double starts at around 6-ish high cards and should have one of two hand, 4 spades and 4 or more clubs or 4 spades with 4 or more diamonds.
When RHO raises to 2H, I assume he is on 3-4 hearts and a smattering of high cards as he didn't bid 3 or 4H. That means partner probably has 3 hearts, along with his 4S, so it is likely his clubs are also 4 long. An 8-count
4324 pattern isn't conducive to us making a lot. Against that hand, 3H is kind of an overbid and 3D is kind of an underbid, and I'm not sure if 4D conveys the right message.

To see a full opening hand with a 5-card spade suit opposite makes me look for an easier table to play at. This guessing game is too tough for me.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2026-May-30, 01:44, said:

Interesting, thanks.
Why do you think B-G is probably superior?
How would it work here?

On many hands there is no real difference. But here’s an example where bad good often works better:

Opener has a decent 5=5 minors hand. 1D (1H) x (2H)

Opener wants to compete but doesn’t want to have partner play him for a good hand. So, playing GB, he bids 2N. This asks partner to bid his preferred minor, unless he has lots of extras in which case he does something forcing. Opener may have both minors or may have a long diamond suit.

So far, so good. But LHO bids 3H, passed around to opener. Maybe responder has something like 4=2=2=5 without the values to have bid 2C over 1H (there are some who’d double even with a good hand but I prefer to show my values and shape via 2C then spades). If he has that hand, we need to compete in clubs much of the time. But we can hardly bid 4C on a 5=5 nice minimum when we might have at most a 5=3 fit playing at the 4 level with roughly half the deck.

Playing weak must speak,,,the title of a good article on this, found in The Bridge World years ago, we bid 3C over 2H and leave the rest to partner, unless he involves us again. With the good hand we bid 2N because with the good hand we’re prepared to bid again if they bid 3H….and (often but it depends on our hand) do something over 4H. Not only are we more likely to have 4 level safety when we have extras but our having extras will sometimes mean that the opps do not have the values to keep bidding.

This is just one example

Picture 1D (1S) x (2S). We have hearts. With a minimum, but one worth competing on, we are far better off being able to bid 3H than having to bid 2N because 3H would show extras. We bid 2N with a weak hand that wants to compete, and LHO should strain to bid 3S, often really screwing us in the auction. Responder knows only that we want to compete…but is that because we fit hearts or because we have both minors or because we have long diamonds?

Yes, we could bid 4H on really good hands (and 3S with even better) but maybe we don’t have game when we hold some 15-16 off shape hand with 4 weak hearts.

One can construct hands and auctions that make one version look better than the other, but I’ve been persuaded that B-G is technically best. Having said that, as is often the case, the gains (or losses) are rare and inertia sets in. In my main partnership we are constantly tweaking an already very complex system and this choice of 2N uses simply isn’t something that’s actually run into problems at the table and we both remember our method, so we’ve never looked at changing it. But it’s like upside down attitude. If one were starting with a blank slate, it’d be silly to play standard attitude but if that’s what your partner is used to and is reluctant to change…well, most of the time it’s irrelevant what you play.

[Cyberyeti]

If I was sitting in all seats the auction would start 1♦-1♥-1♠-3♥ and it would get difficult.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2026-May-30, 08:37, said:

So in a serious TG, 4♦/2♥ is the correct bid, but in a serious game it will be a different auction anyway.

You’d be surprised. In a serious event you’d find a LOT of expert partnerships playing that after 1D (1H):

X is 4-5 spades, unlimited in values
1S is clubs, almost any strength from a sort of weak 2 to gf
1N is 1N
2C is a good raise in diamonds, less than limit
2D is a weak raise
2H is any hand with 6 spades, weak two values upwards, unlimited
2S is a limit+ diamond raise

There will be relatively minor variants. For example, I play that 1D (1H) 2D shows 8-10, 5-5 in the blacks ( a modification of a treatment picked up from a top Italian pair). And ne can assign different meanings to 1S and 1N…it often makes sense to have opener declare notrump so 1S could be used to show a 1N bid with 1N being clubs.

Of course, maybe non experts, indeed, many experts still play that x is always 4 spades and one bids 1S with 5+.

One of the problems with posting this type of hand is that partner is lying to us about his shape, assuming you play standard doubles. Once a player lies in a constructive auction the partnership will very often end up in the wrong spot or have to guess very luckily. There is virtually nothing one can learn about bidding if partner’s actions in a given auction are random. Tye OP asked, in another thread I think, about whether one can or should depart from agreements. One shouldn’t, although outright psyches can be an exception, so long as they’re well timed and one’s partner is very ethical.

Not only did north screw up but one has to wonder what east was thinking. 2H isn’t a strong bid but it should show some values. West could have a hand worth a game try or even a game bid opposite a single raise. Now ,if playing mixed raises, east has a problem. But I’m guessing that in the OP game, 3H would have been preemptive, which looks about right. I’d not bid 4H myself but I know some good players who would

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 Marshall Miles also suggested, that the strong hand go through 2NT, the good hand can take care of themself
Now this ends up being the same argument NFB vs. forcing, take your pick.
Anyway we play it the way Miles suggested, we got introduced by Miles book to the concept / idea.

#2 If you play weak NT, opener will quite often have a strong NT hand, i.e. he will have the stronger version
quite natural.

#3why not 1S instead of X? Unless 1S does deny 4+ spasdes it is obvious, espesicially, if 1S showes 5+.
I am not fully against 2H, ... it is a lot better than hiding the 5 card spade suit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mike777]

3D seems ok playing good bad 2nt

4D ok also
North will not pass in any case

[DavidKok]

For G/B 2NT, which I currently do not play, we distinguish four strength ranges.

• Weak - passes. This is obvious, and often left unsaid, but some hands have extra shape but can't brave the 3-level.
  
• Competitive.
  
• Constructive.
  
• Game forcing.

I think putting 2+4 through 2NT is sensible, so that you have a clear split range. This goes against the advice from mikeh to put 3 in 2NT, and I am not sure if some game forcing hands may also start with 2NT.

At any rate I've had few wins and frequent losses playing G/B, and I am not fond of the convention.

[mike777]

After discussing, we may not even be playing GB the correct way

However we are playing it the same way in agreement. We understand when we are minimum or non minimum. It actually comes up so..
In practice.
Smile