[paulg]

IMPs, NS Vulnerable

---

This felt like a tempo-sensitive situation at the table but even now when I have more time to consider I am still unsure what is best.

Partner's 2♦ is competitive and forcing for one round. You do not play good/bad 2NT.

Which calls do you consider and what is your final choice? It is not an appeal/ruling question, I was just unhappy with my choice.

[rhm]

I would bid 4♥.
Raising ♦ is likely to be better only if you can make six, which is possible if partner has ♦AK and ♣A. With that much he might move over 4♥ anyway.
If opponents continue with 4♠, I will next bid 5♦ next even if partner doubles. Too risky to leave the double in with so much support for ♦. If 5♦ goes down I do not expect to get doubled.
I see 2 distant alternatives: 3♠ or 3♦, with the intention of bidding 4♥ next. This assumes that 3♦ is unlikely to get passed out. Neither alternative does justice to the ♥ suit.

Rainer Herrmann

[hotShot]

Opps and partners bidding made 4♥ very attractive, 3♦ or 3♥ won't get me there.

Hopping that partner has 2♥s and that he covers my ♦ loser seems not asking to much.

So I would bid 4♥.

[Fluffy]

I wanna play 4♥ however I'd only bid 3♥ cos I consider it forcing.

[mikeh]

I want to play 4♥ most of the time as well, but I want to play 6♦ opposite as little as xxx x AKxxx Axxx, and no number of hearts is going to get me there.

This isn't matchpoints, so +600 in 5♦ rather than +650 in hearts is no big deal. I think I will bid 3♠...this preserves some chance of playing hearts (say he bids 3N..now I bid 4♥) while also allowing us to find some diamond slams.

4♠ is aimed more directly at slam and may turn out to have been the best choice, but I don't think I want to commit to diamonds quite as strongly as that call suggests.

Tough problem....at mps, I agree with 3♥, so long as I am sure partner will take it as forcing, since it (slightly) preserves diamond possibilities: at least compared to 4♥.

[gwnn]

3♠, good hand with a ♦ fit. will rebid 4♥ next, good hand with a ♦ fit and interest in ♥ too. I will not conceal my ♦ fit sorry everyone

jumping in this ♥ suit is far too unilateral to me, partner will pass me with x or not even x in hearts, what will I tell him then?

[Phil]

3♠ is one of those funny splinters, no? - since our pass is forcing over 2♠ (I hope!).

FYI, I do not play g/b after a two level response.

[gnasher]

I'd bid 3♠, given the methods. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to bid 2NT to show a diamond raise?

[han]

I'd bid 3S. I don't think pass is forcing, and I don't think that 3S is a funny splinter. Fluffy's suggestion that 3H is forcing makes this thread completely bizarre.

Whether you bid 3S, 4D, 4H, 4S, 5D, I don't think that there is anything time-sensitive about these calls.

[l milne]

Agree with Han.

I would've thought 2NT is 6♥ 4♣ with 3♣ showing 55+.

[Free]

Why would 3♠ be a funny splinter? It's just a cuebid...
No idea if pass should be forcing, I wouldn't consider it forcing actually.

3♠ seems like a good start, lets see what partner tells us.

[paulg]

han, on 2010-December-01, 14:28, said:

Whether you bid 3S, 4D, 4H, 4S, 5D, I don't think that there is anything time-sensitive about these calls.

I was thinking that if you were considering making a non-forcing bid, such as 3♦ or 4♥, then you'd prefer to do it tempo. Which would mean you have to think about the other possibilities quickly.

[paulg]

On the actual hand it mattered little what you do. My partner even bid the diamond slam after I wimped out bid a strategic 3♦.

My concern about 4♥ was missing a diamond slam. My concern about 3♠ was continuations if LHO bid 4♠. My choice was made on the basis that I could catch up later, if there was a later. As I said, I was unhappy with my bidding on this.

Thanks for the contributions.

[Fluffy]

paul I am a bit puzzled with the definition of "competitive and forcing for one round"

What is the worst hand partner would bid it on?. Can he pass if we bid 2♥ over 2♦?

[paulg]

Fluffy, on 2010-December-02, 07:33, said:

paul I am a bit puzzled with the definition of "competitive and forcing for one round"

What is the worst hand partner would bid it on?. Can he pass if we bid 2♥ over 2♦?

2♥ would not be forcing over 2♦, if partner has bid with a misfitting nine count. I think 'competitive' means an ultra-light 2/1, so minimum of 8 or 9 points with a fair (6-card) suit.

[nige1]

paulg, on 2010-December-01, 02:44, said:

IMPs, NS Vulnerable
Partner's 2♦ is competitive and forcing for one round. You do not play good/bad 2NT.
This felt like a tempo-sensitive situation at the table but even now when I have more time to consider I am still unsure what is best.
Which calls do you consider and what is your final choice? It is not an appeal/ruling question, I was just unhappy with my choice.

---

IMO 3♠ = 10, 4♥ = 9, 4♦ = 8. 3♥ = 7
4♥ is best if it shows this kind of hand, conventionally.

[Phil]

Free, on 2010-December-02, 04:41, said:

Why would 3♠ be a funny splinter? It's just a cuebid...
No idea if pass should be forcing, I wouldn't consider it forcing actually.

3♠ seems like a good start, lets see what partner tells us.

Maybe someone else can provide the link but in several places we have discussed an auction like:

1♠ - pass - 2♦ - 2♥;
3♥

and a sizable and intelligent group thought this was a splinter. Why not a cuebid? Because you do not need a cue since we are in a forcing pass auction, which prompted my question to Paul.

[paulg]

In the UK I would not expect pass to be forcing over 2♠, though gnasher may correct me.

For the majority of players this is because light 2/1s in Acol mean that a force through 2NT (or higher) has not been created. Gnasher or Frances probably has more insight into the top English players, but it doesn't feel a forcing auction to me.

[gnasher]

Phil, on 2010-December-02, 10:01, said:

Maybe someone else can provide the link but in several places we have discussed an auction like:

1♠ - pass - 2♦ - 2♥;
3♥

and a sizable and intelligent group thought this was a splinter. Why not a cuebid? Because you do not need a cue since we are in a forcing pass auction, which prompted my question to Paul.

That's (probably) a very different auction. If you found a sizeable group of people to discuss this sequence, they were probably discussing a game-forcing 2♦.

In Paul's sequence, 2♦ is forcing only as far as 2♥. I don't think it's normal for such a call to set up a forcing pass above 2♥.

[Fluffy]

Seems that the difference is paul's 2♦is forcing but doesn't promise a rebid