[WellSpyder]

---

Imps scoring. 4-card majors, 12-14 NT. 1♦ promises 4, and the 2♣ rebid shows at least 5-4. Are you happy with 2♦ preference or do you think you need to show something more than this?

As I guess is the case with a number of polls, this question arises from a difference of view with partner, leading me to wonder whether my view of the standard approach here might have been misguided for all these years......

[ggwhiz]

In my partnership the opener almost always has a singleton somewhere and if they have what I need for game they will ALWAYS take another call, ie 2♠ would show a 3-1-(45) (54) etc. with 16 ish.

[gwnn]

our hearts will very often be exactly useless. 2D.

[ArtK78]

2♦ is the correct call on these cards.

[CSGibson]

2♦. If you start throwing in some tens, I might consider 2N, but never 3♦

[aguahombre]

Two reasons for not bidding 3D:

---one or both of those major-suit honors might well be useless.
---Pard might be 4-5. (Side note--really ugly 4-5's we have decided not to open at all, but this hand is still a long way off from 2NT.)

[nigel_k]

I voted for 3♦. The problem is that 2♦ has such an enormous range, especially when you respond fairly light in one of a major as many people do now (and I agree with). Sure the ♥Q is suspect, but it may still be useful. A queen is not excessive wastage anyway given that we have bid hearts partner will make his own adjustment expecting that we have some values in hearts.

My partners have learned to pass quite good hands when I give simple preference and I don't want them to start unlearning that.

[aguahombre]

nigel_k, on 2012-March-05, 13:46, said:

My partners have learned to pass quite good hands when I give simple preference and I don't want them to start unlearning that.

What I don't want them to unlearn are (1) that a hand only good enough to invite game if I had opened 1NT is not good enough to invite game in NT if I didn't; and (2) that with a hand like this one, if we belong in game, partner will bid again over 2D. Her 2C rebid might have a wide range (11-18), but my simple preference has a simple range. The only thing wide about 2D is whether it has 2, 3, 4, or 5 diamonds...not the overall strength.

[nigel_k]

Ok, let me ask a followup question. Partner holds:

???
x
KQxxx
AKxx

What spade holding (not including the king) makes the hand a minimum for further action after a 2♦ preference? Bear in mind that you may be opposite xxx KJxxx Jx Qxx (and that is not a minimum).

[awm]

Bidding on over the preference shows 16-18 or so. Opener would need the spade ace (or KJx) to bid on. Opposite a misfitting near min like he gave, 2nt will have good chances. It is true that sometimes you go down in 2nt on 22 high, but similarly you sometimes go down in 3d on 22 high. Inviting has risks (from either side). The thing is that bidding 3d on this hand doesn't really spare opener from bidding on with 16 over a preference, since 9-10 with doubleton diamond is still a simple preference...

[Statto]

Sounds about right, I'd say AJx or KJ9 in light of the misfit in ♥.

[JLOGIC]

awm, on 2012-March-05, 19:16, said:

Bidding on over the preference shows 16-18 or so. Opener would need the spade ace (or KJx) to bid on. Opposite a misfitting near min like he gave, 2nt will have good chances. It is true that sometimes you go down in 2nt on 22 high, but similarly you sometimes go down in 3d on 22 high. Inviting has risks (from either side). The thing is that bidding 3d on this hand doesn't really spare opener from bidding on with 16 over a preference, since 9-10 with doubleton diamond is still a simple preference...

+ 1 million, totally normal.

[JLOGIC]

Also, obv 2D.

[mich-b]

easy 2♦ imo.
If pd happens to have a very fitting 15 , and 3NT is makeable, so be it...

[WellSpyder]

Thanks for you views, everyone. Like most, I thought the hand was a clear 2D bid, despite the fact that it is quite a bit better than some hands that would also bid 2D. But my partner - who is a very experienced and capable player - thought it was worth 3D. 2D+2 was fine as a result, but I was just surprised at the difference of views.

[mycroft]

If you're playing K/S (which it's clear you're not, because it's a 5cM system), or (I'm guessing) older versions of Acol, where minor openings were sounder than current, then maybe you have enough. For instance, according to K/S Updated, this hand is a 2♥ call: 5card M, forcing.

But playing K/SU, opener's hand is a 2♦ call, *not* a 2♣ call, unless the spades are at least QJx, IMO. 2♣ is "effectively forcing" in 1960's K/S, 100% forcing in K/SU.

So, (ending the digression for a minute) maybe your partner is old-fashioned and effectively, 1♦ then anything except 2♦ is "more than weak NT strength"? Under those circumstances, your hand is a clear "more than preference".

Note, I happen to like playing K/S because I like the confidence of "sound minor openings". I know I'm giving away a lot when I pass with hands that "everybody" is opening - but I don't have these kinds of problems when partner *does* open.