[kenrexford]

For those who would have 1M-P-1NT-P-3min as something like 5-5 and intermediate (Precision, or Power 2NT people), a question:

It seems to me (and my regular good partner) that 4♣ by Responder, if Opener's minor is diamonds, is best used as a choice bid. Thus, for example, if the auction were 1♠-P-1NT!-P-3♦-P-4♣, Responder's 4♣ serces the best practical need if it shows something like a good hand with club support and a doubleton spade, basically offering Opener to bid 4♦ or to consider bidding 4♠ is his spades are good enough. Opener would surely bid 4♠ with AKQ109 in spades on the high end but 4♦ with AJxxx in spades.

I assume that this first premise will be accepted as sound.

So, what if Opener's minor is clubs? Do you think that 3♦ is more useful as:

1. Just long diamonds -- give up on the choice option,
2. Clearly choice, or perhaps
3. Forcing, possibly choice, possibly seeking 3NT, whatever, but PUNT'y

[gnasher]

Why don't you use 4♦ as your "choice" bid, and keep your three level bids as they are?

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on May 7 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

Why don't you use 4♦ as your "choice" bid, and keep your three level bids as they are?

Here's the actual hand that resulted in the discussion, to explain why:

♠xx ♥Axx ♦xxxx ♣Kxx.

Or, something like that.

Partner opens 1♠ and you make a forcing 1NT response.

Partner now jumps to 3♣, showing 5-5 in the black suits and intermediate values. You expect, therefore, roughly a 5-loser hand. It could be slightly worse (5.25 losers) to perhaps even rather decent but fit-dependent.

So, you expect to take 10 tricks.

If you bid 4♦, your expected result will be either 4♠ on a good day or 5♣-1 on a bad day.

Had your minors been reversed and had partner's suit been diamonds, then 4♣ would not bypass 4♦.