[pescetom]

Not in the wrong forum... just a phase of the moon that does not help in competitive bidding.
South is your regular human partner, good opponents.

MP

---

Let's say you opened 1♦.
The 1♠ response is 5+.
Your rebid now, and what conditions of forcing apply?

[DavidKok]

3♣, constructive not forcing, I don't play G/B 2NT but those who do will have room for a sharper range here.

[mike777]

 pescetom, on 2026-July-03, 08:36, said:

Not in the wrong forum... just a phase of the moon that does not help in competitive bidding.
South is your regular human partner, good opponents.

MP

---

Let's say you opened 1♦.
The 1♠ response is 5+.
Your rebid now, and what conditions of forcing apply?

3C definitely extras
G/B definitely applies

[paulg]

DavidKok, on 2026-July-03, 08:44, said:

3♣, constructive not forcing, I don't play G/B 2NT but those who do will have room for a sharper range here.

I'd bid 3♣ too.

This hand is typical of why I do not play good/bad 2NT. When the next hand bids 4♥, you have no idea why partner was competing.

[jillybean]

I have extras
3C

Love the thread title

[pescetom]

Reassuring so far.
I bid 3♣, NF but quite a hand (no G/B).
East bids 3♥ and it comes around to you again.
Now ?

[pescetom]

Take your time, I have a beginners tournament starting

[Cyberyeti]

We play odd methods here, X=4♣, 3♣=5 not sub minimum but not necessarily huge extras

[mike777]

 pescetom, on 2026-July-03, 11:07, said:

Reassuring so far.
I bid 3♣, NF but quite a hand (no G/B).
East bids 3♥ and it comes around to you again.
Now ?

4C

Since I have promised a rare, for me, non minimum hand and partner chose not to double, I will not.

[pescetom]

MP

---

Let's hear some others.

What shape(s) will your partner imagine before and after this call?

[DavidKok]

I will bid 4♣. I do not have a strong conviction that this is winning, but I'll try anyway. Thankfully it's MPs, so at worst it can cost a single board.

Partner should expect us to hold approximately a 2=2=5=4, or '2264 minus a card', on hearing 3♥. Partner knows of our relatively short hearts because the opponents raised and partner is presumably looking at a couple in their hand. Note that with some extra values, hearts in the hand and a misfit in all three other suits partner might well have doubled 3♥. Their 3♥ also took away partner's ability to give preference to 3♦. Out of curiosity, what would 2♠ over 1♥ have meant? I have long played this as a fitbid but currently play it as a weak jump shift in spades - being able to rule out either of those hand types would be an important inference here.

After my 4♣ partner will expect a good 5-5 or a not-terrible 6-5.

[apollo1201]

 pescetom, on 2026-July-04, 02:10, said:

MP

Let's hear some others.

What shape(s) will your partner imagine before and after this call?

Had not contributed so far as pretty in line with the others.

1st call 3C: a min 55 with concentrated honors is enough (of course if I ve stretched already with x xx AKxxx Kxxxx, I can wait what partner will say, but with the CQ the call is automatic for me), or a non-min 54 (xx xx AKJxx AQxx). With 64 it would depend on how strong D are vs C as I would bid 3D with a suitable min hand and a decent 6-carder.

2nd call 4C: now expectations are raised, 55 at least for sure, and not minimal, let s say around 15 HCP. Could be 65, and I am starting to think that with 5D and 6C that I felt too weak to open 1C, I would still be tempted to bid again (x x KQxxx AQxxxx) but it would be risky as partner would put me back to D too often. Not sure what is best with this one… so a question to your question!

[pescetom]

 DavidKok, on 2026-July-04, 02:20, said:

Out of curiosity, what would 2♠ over 1♥ have meant? I have long played this as a fitbid but currently play it as a weak jump shift in spades - being able to rule out either of those hand types would be an important inference here.

We play it as a weak (potentially very weak) jump shift, just like you.

[DavidKok]

It's starting to look like partner is holding approximately a 5=3=2=3 and insufficient values to act over 3♥. In that case there are only 17 total trumps - superficially one shy of the 18 that makes bidding 4 over 3 good according to the LAW. However, the double fit and diamond texture are probably enough justification to bid anyway. Those clubs only come in on offence, not defence.
Putting it differently, if partner has only 5 spades (increased likelihood because of a failure to bid 2♠) and 3 hearts (probable because of the 3♥ competition, but far from guaranteed), there must be 5 minor suit cards opposite our 11. That's a double fit or a 9-card fit. And while there's a chance partner holds more major suit cards, there's also a chance of more minor suit cards.

Put differently still, I'm worried only one diamond will stand up on defence. That makes defending 3♥ not that attractive.

[akwoo]

For me this is a minimum 4C over 2H. Stronger than 3C but still not forcing.

Possibly influenced by my playing a weak NT K/S style in most of my partnerships, so that pass would show 15-17 balanced, and 3C could be on something like x Jxx AKxxx KQxx or x Jx KQxxx KQxxx

[pescetom]

That is almost exactly what I was thinking, 5323 and insufficient total trumps for four level. Yes the diamonds will not go far on defence, but maybe she is pulling punches because her three hearts are well honoured. I was also concerned that this is a much less aggressive field than I am used to and that many East probably failed to take a second bite at the cherry, allowing South a comfortable 3♦. Partner knows I don't bid 3♣ on much less than this and chose Pass. I decided (probably wrongly) that defending was the better chance to still score on our side.

[pescetom]

Here is what was going on from South's point of view.

MP

---

[DavidKok]

Seems pretty reasonable to me. Good intermediates and well-placed honours... but still not clear how we get 5 tricks on defence. Spade lead, spade ruff, two cashing diamonds and maybe an uppercut? But if the diamonds split 4-1 we're far from home, and that spade play established the suit for them for a potential club pitch. Meanwhile in 4♦ or 4♣ I spy a heart loser and one or two club losers - possibly a ruff in the other minor, if we're unlucky. Not the worst odds of making.

[pescetom]

So I don't get to share the blame with anyone, except perhaps the moon.

MP

---

Setting 3♥ scoring 50 was 37% for NS, with half the field in 130 or 150 and an equal split between +50/+100 and -50/-100 plus a few 400.
Unfortunately there is no data on which contracts were played, but taking the push to 4♣ would have assured 60%/80%.

[WasWinM]

pescetom, on 2026-July-05, 08:38, said:

So I don't get to share the blame with anyone, except perhaps the moon.

MP

---

Setting 3♥ scoring 50 was 37% for NS, with half the field in 130 or 150 and an equal split between +50/+100 and -50/-100 plus a few 400.
Unfortunately there is no data on which contracts were played, but taking the push to 4♣ would have assured 60%/80%.

I wouldn't blame myself much. It's hard to visualize the double fit due to the 6th diamond in partner's hand. If he's 5-5 I doubt 4C is a winning bid.