[nigel_k]

Kx
Axxx
AJ10xx
xx

1♦-(2♣)-2♠-(P)-?

Expert partner, 2♠ is natural and forcing. No other relevant agreements. It was matchpoints and I think all vul if that matters.

[CSGibson]

Boy this is a distasteful problem, isn't it? I am torn between 3♦ and 3♠ (though I hate both, and also considered 3♥ and 3♣, rejecting both because they sound very strong).

The problem in my mind with 3♦ is that I would not be sure what partner's possible 3♥ follow-up would be - natural, or just the only forcing bid below 3N, allowing me to show my doubleton spade.

If I was confident in the meaning of 3♥ after I bid 3♦, I would bid 3♦. Since I am not confident, I will make a 3♠ call instead - at least if there's a club tap to be taken, it will be by the short suit.

[quiddity]

For me the choice is between 2NT and 3♠. I think I would pick 2NT.

[CSGibson]

I'm bumping this because I'm really curious about the opinions of some of our regular posters who have not responded so far.

[Phil]

- 2N is a lie, a LIE. I just can't do it on a doubleton. Change me to Kx Axxx AJTx xxx and I'd try it.

- 3♦ is OK and it can't be called a misdescription.

- 3♥ is not a consideration.

I like 3♠. My hand is very sharp (suit oriented) and I can take the club tap in my hand. The 5-2 should play well if partner has any texture in his spades.

By the way, my opponents always pass these hands and they come out smelling like a rose when partner has five spades and an 11 count.

[ArtK78]

2NT is a lie, even with Kx Axxx AJTx xxx. For me, it is out of the question.

I choose 3♦. And, if partner bids 3♥, which may be a notrump probe, I will raise to 4♥. If it turns out that 3♥ was not natural, partner will convert to 4♠ or 5♦, and I am comfortable with both of those contracts.

[aguahombre]

CSGibson, on 2012-February-09, 12:14, said:

I'm bumping this because I'm really curious about the opinions of some of our regular posters who have not responded so far.

There are a few situations, of which this is one, where we are glad 2S is not just forcing but game forcing. Phil and Chris seem to identify all the flaws in the possibilities ---given the standard treatment of 2S as a condition of the thread.

[nigel_k]

I've added a poll to encourage more answers.

[glen]

nigel_k, on 2012-February-09, 12:57, said:

I've added a poll to encourage more answers.

Thanks, I voted for 3♠.

Good question, and one that needs to be considered so that at the table the answer can be made in tempo. Likewise the partnership needs to understand that 1♦-(2♣)-2♠-3♠-3NT is a choice of game, to allow an out for these hand types. In sophisticated partnerships, they could bid 3♣ as choice, forcing to at least 3♠.

[quiddity]

2NT is a lie in the sense that it lacks a stopper, but it has some advantages. It limits the hand strength and suggests balanced shape with 2-card spade support. Above all it is the cheapest bid so it is flexible. We can get to spades when partner rebids his 6-card suit. We can get to diamonds when partner corrects. We can get to hearts. We can get to 3NT with partner just bids it with a stopper and we can stay out of 3NT when partner cuebids first showing doubt.

[mgoetze]

It seems everyone is confident 2NT would be natural? I was wondering whether it should be Lebensohl.

[gnasher]

In my preferred style, 2NT is natural but not promising a stop, so it wouldn't be a lie. However, I'd still raise spades with this hand, because it looks very suit-oriented.

Quote

It seems everyone is confident 2NT would be natural? I was wondering whether it should be Lebensohl.

I don't think that's playable if your 1♦ opening includes balanced hands with four diamonds. What would you do with a 2443 12-count?

[wank]

i'd bid 3♠, unhappily obviously.

partner can still try 3nt

[jmcw]

3♦ NF, the best of whats available.

It has the considerable advantage of keeping the auction relatively low, does not exagerate my ♣ or ♠ holding, may even be our best spot.
If Partner continues I'll be happy to but him in game in that strain.

[MrAce]

Imo there are 2 logical alternatives. 3♦ and 3♠ and as other posters already said they both have flaws such as lacking the 3rd ♠ or 6th ♦.

I would personally go with 3♦, because 3♠ is more or less comitting our side in ♠ contracts. Otoh 3♦ still keeps 3NT or ♥ contracts in picture. I wouldnt mind 3♠ bid at all though and it actually has its own advantages too.

Regardless of 3♦ or 3♠, if we have an experienced pd he should be aware that we are making a forced bid and due to requirements after overcall ( such as stopper requirement for NT bids ) we may be choosing a bid among the ones available, not neccesarilly the one we really want to bid.