[apjames]

---

Would appreciate any thoughts. North's pass forces XX, either to play or to bid 4 card suits up the line.

[Hanoi5]

What's 2♦? Is it a bad hand afraid of the redouble (then why didn't it wait for it)? I suppose 2♠ is 'forcing' unless partner is showing a very bad hand and I'd bid that.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

you are certainly strong enough, to give it one more try.

Bid your 5 card suit, the alternative would be to raise 2D to 3D,
even when this ends up in a 4-3 fit contract to be played on the
3 level, this wont be too catastrophic.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pooltuna]

I am a 2♠ advocate as well. Don't see how else you are going to find an 8 card major suit fit.

[Lurpoa]

apjames, on 2011-June-09, 06:14, said:

---

Would appreciate any thoughts. North's pass forces XX, either to play or to bid 4 card suits up the line.

♥
Eeast seems to be weak.....did we expect anything else ? It might have been wise to pass, if the vulnerabilities were reveresd. But here we do not want to miss the vulnerable game.
So give it one more try: 2♠. Anyway it is not sure that 2♦ is a better contract than 2♠, probably not, even if it was only for the strong hand on the table.

[nige1]

IMO without any special agreement, 2♦ should be weak but a reasonable suit.
A delayed 2♦ should still be weak but is more likely to be a scramble.
Now 2♠ = 10, (because it's pairs) 3♦ = 9 (in case partner thinks 2♦ showed values)

---

[Lurpoa]

nige1, on 2011-June-09, 12:22, said:

IMO without any special agreement, 2♦ should be weak but a reasonable suit.
A delayed 2♦ should still be weak but is more likely to be a scramble.
Now 2♠ = 10, (because it's pairs) 3♦ = 9 (in case partner thinks 2♦ showed values)

---

♥

How nice....

I didn't think about the possiblity of a pass and a 2♦bid if the XX gets passed out.

So yes, I agree with your viewpoint: 2♦ direct is a 5card, the delayed 2♦ is only a 4 card, and the lowest of 2, and invites to bid a higher ranking 4card, if not 4-3.


This said, comming back to the hand: do we still go for a game try in ♠ after 2♦. I think yes.

[quiddity]

It seems to me that partner should have something like 0-6 points and 5+ diamonds. Stronger hands are willing to defend 1NT-XX. Flatter hands would scramble.
I don't see how 2♠ by us could be "forcing". I expect partner to pass routinely with a doubleton or even a singleton spade. This being the case (and given our poor spade suit), I would opt for safety and pass 2♦.

[apjames]

This sequence was undiscussed, but I figured that parnter had two ways to bid here, and that a suit after the XX would be scrambling, so this bid must show some values?.At the table I bid 2♠ and partner raised to 3. I thought I had a clear raise to game then.

[helene_t]

No, if a delayed 2♦ is scrambling it means that 2♦ now shows a single-suited hand while a delayed 2♦ shows a more flexible hand. It doesn't mean that a direct 2♦ shows values. Obviously you can have other agreements about the difference between the direct and the delayed 2♦ but in any case the direct bid doesn't show values. With values you pass, happy to defending 1NTxx, or maybe doubling whatever suit they run to after the xx.

[655321]

I would expect 2♦ to show long diamonds and no values, so I would pass 2♦.

Sometimes 5♦ might make, but we have no sensible way of finding out when. We could raise to 3♦ but that won't really tell partner when he should bid on.

I wouldn't bid 2♠ because partner will usually pass that even with spade shortage. Someone suggested that partner will pull the double to 2♦ with as many as 6 points, I don't agree with that.

[mtvesuvius]

My personal preference is that partner passes over the redouble unless they have a good reason not to... This means that 2♦ shows probably a fairly weak hand with a lot of diamonds. I'll try 2♠ now, although I think 3♦ could certainly be right.