[jillybean]

---

2/1
2♠/1♦ is a wjs

Do you support diamonds and give up on the spades, or can you show both suits?

[EricK]

This kind of hand is the reason I've never been a fan of wjs. What forcing bids do you have available here?

[jillybean]

2♥, 3♣, 3♦ would be forcing

[mike777]

npp yet


4h rkc for d: Iknow you play kickback

and yes I know we dont have h

[Mbodell]

I think you are probably strong enough to key card for diamonds, even though key card with xx in hearts is bad, since 6 may be cold missing 1 keycard or might be off two cashing hearts. If you do play kickback here the nice thing is once you find partner with 2 key cards your specific K ask will be 5♥ so the first K partner shows/denies will be the most important spade one.

Is 2♥ and 3♣ both natural? I often play one of them as artificial and forcing (kind of like a fsf), and if 2♥ is the artificial bid you may be able to do that and hear about spade support (in which case maybe 6 spades is best) or 2nt or 3♣ from partner which would let you set diamonds as trump at the three level and leave room for cue bidding (because you really want to hear about heart controls, and for that matter the spade K is a key card too). 7 is certainly not out of the picture either.

[CSGibson]

if 3♦ is forcing, I do that. If partner bids 3♠, I can cue-bid 4♣ on my way to a spade slam. If partner bids 3♥, I can bid 3♠ and see what partner had in mind. if partner bids 3N, I'm assuming that hearts are stopped with either an ace or king, and I'm bidding 4♥ as kickback for diamonds & hoping its right.

[jillybean]

I think we should be playing 3♣ here as a nmf/checkback but without that it appears that I am forced to bid keycard for diamonds and
give up on spades.

I decided to try 3♣, undiscussed.

1♦:1♠
2♦:3♣
4♣: !

I am now screwed, 4♦ is kickback, 4♥/4♠ is a cue and 5♦ exclusion.

We have been toying with the idea of using WJS but I am a die hard SJS fan and this hand only strengthens my resolve.

[EricK]

jillybean, on 2012-May-15, 00:43, said:

We have been toying with the idea of using WJS but I am a die hard SJS fan and this hand only strengthens my resolve.

If you are not going to play SJS, I think you need to play something like "third suit game forcing". i.e. if opener rebids his suit then your cheapest new suit is an artificial GF (it is possibly worth playing even if you keep SJS). If you play that opener will raise your major on an unbalanced minimum with 3 card support, then an artificial 2♥ rebid works very well here. Partner will bid 2♠ with Kx, and otherwise you can simply agree ♦.

[gwnn]

jillybean, on 2012-May-15, 00:01, said:

2♥, 3♣, 3♦ would be forcing

3♦ really shouldn't be! But if I'm really sure that it is, I'll bid it and be happy that this agreement was retired on top (I'm changing it after the hand).

[paulg]

I cannot think of a hand that means partner will raise 3♣ on this auction.

[gordontd]

jillybean, on 2012-May-15, 00:01, said:

2♥, 3♣, 3♦ would be forcing

How is 3♦ forcing?

[Mbodell]

paulg, on 2012-May-15, 01:39, said:

I cannot think of a hand that means partner will raise 3♣ on this auction.

If partner thinks 3♣ is natural (presumably 3♣ shows 55+ in the blacks then?), then a minimum (21)=6=4 opener might bid this way. Kx x KQxxxx Kxxx might be the sort of hand that was strong enough to open 1♦, not strong enough to rebid 2♣ instead of 2♦, but feels a lot stronger opposite the 3♣ bid where slam exploring might be on opposite a partner with A-5th in the black suits, at least a red A, and a little more (trump Q or the other A).

But I agree that 3♦ over 2♦ can't possibly be forcing, it has to be a nf courtesy raise.

[ahydra]

If 3D is forcing, then great! Otherwise, what about 3S? If partner comes back with 3NT you bid 4D and that gets the point across (6S 3+D with some slam interest), though risky at MPs.

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

If you play WJS, then you need to play 1♦-1♠-2♦-2♥ as a Bourke style relay, it needn't be GF but is a one round force over which partner can describe his hand.

[gordontd]

Mbodell, on 2012-May-15, 02:12, said:

If partner thinks 3♣ is natural (presumably 3♣ shows 55+ in the blacks then?), then a minimum (21)=6=4 opener might bid this way. Kx x KQxxxx Kxxx might be the sort of hand that was strong enough to open 1♦, not strong enough to rebid 2♣ instead of 2♦,

Strange idea that you might only show six of your cards with your rebid rather than nine, and risk playing in a 6-1 fit when a 4-5 fit might be available.

[dkham]

In the scenario where partner raises your artificial club bid (and indeed even for the OP if you're really stuck), I think the best guess is to go for 6♦.

Or is this Matchpoint scoring?

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2012-May-15, 04:32, said:

Strange idea that you might only show six of your cards with your rebid rather than nine, and risk playing in a 6-1 fit when a 4-5 fit might be available.

A matter of degree, 7-4 would always bid this way, as would AKQJxx/xxxx, the example hand wasn't good.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I don't see how 3D is forcing either, but since you say it is, then you don't have a problem with this hand.

Better to use 2H! as "cheapest bid new suit forcing " over a minor rebid, a la Bourke Relay as per Cyberyeti [ post # 14 ] or Erick [ post # 8 ] .

[jillybean]

No scroing, we were bidding some hands on the partnership bidding table.

---

Partner could have supported ♠'s over 3♣ but it brought up an intersting problem anyway.

Which is better in this sequence 1♦ 1♠ 2♦ 3♣* nmf or 2♥ Bourke relay?
(edit after reading the post above) Why is Bourke relay better? If I have spades and hearts I won't show that until the 4level.

I agree 3♦/2♦ should be nf.

If you had SJS available, would you have used it on this hand?

[gwnn]

Partner has a nice 2♣ rebid, then we could have forced to game cheaply.