[baabaa]

North/South vulnerable. You sit North and are the dealer in MP.

♠AKTxx
♥JT
♦98xx
♣xx

The bidding goes pass-pass-1♦-3♣

What would you bid after this? Would you pass, bid 3♦ or bid 3♠?

[TylerE]

If this isn't a 3♠ bid (which promises diamond tolerance, btw), I don't know what is.

[FelicityR]

Personally I would err on the the side or caution, especially vulnerable with this 5422 hand. Technically you haven't got a 3♦ limit raise or 3♠ bid available. Bidding here just makes life very difficult for your partner especially if the opponents raise to 4♣. I'd rather let partner re-open than bid here. So pass.

[Cyberyeti]

What did the diamond show ? I could be on a very sticky wicket opposite a 2443 minimum opener. I'm much more comfortable if playing a weak NT.

[helene_t]

What about double, then pass 3d but correct 3h to spades?

[akwoo]

 FelicityR, on 2020-September-11, 15:02, said:

Personally I would err on the the side or caution, especially vulnerable with this 5422 hand. Technically you haven't got a 3♦ limit raise or 3♠ bid available. Bidding here just makes life very difficult for your partner especially if the opponents raise to 4♣. I'd rather let partner re-open than bid here. So pass.

Partner has

♠Qx ♥Axx ♦KQJxx ♣xxx

not a strong hand or a particularly distributional one, and pass loses you 6 IMPs (or most of a board at MPs).

True, partner could have

♠xx ♥Qxx ♦AKxx ♣QJxx

and pass gains you 4 IMPs.

More commonly, partner might have something like

♠Qxx ♥Qxx ♦AKxx ♣xxx

which is probably a push at IMPs (but a gain for bidding at MPs).

But the +6 IMPs for bidding hands are a bit more common than the -4 IMPs for bidding ones, though maybe less common than the -3 IMPs (-200 vs -110) for bidding hands.

Yeah probably more than half of the time when you bid, you'll go down. But bridge scoring generally rewards mild sacrifices. If you're afraid of going down, you're not going to do well at bridge.

[helene_t]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-September-11, 16:20, said:

What did the diamond show ? I could be on a very sticky wicket opposite a 2443 minimum opener. I'm much more comfortable if playing a weak NT.

Yes, IMHO it is problems like this that's the strongest argument for playing weak NT.

[akwoo]

 helene_t, on 2020-September-11, 19:02, said:

Yes, IMHO it is problems like this that's the strongest argument for playing weak NT.

It's why I prefer playing a weak NT.

[apollo1201]

 helene_t, on 2020-September-11, 16:27, said:

What about double, then pass 3d but correct 3h to spades?

I’d do it with a S more (but I’d probably have opened 2S in that case), or a bit more strength (DQ for instance). Or a H more (5341 distribution) but less confidently (to pass 3H). Here, we could possibly end up in a 52 fit at the 3 level, or in 4D, with only half of the deck, red.

Pass and 3D are probably safer calls.

[baabaa]

 TylerE, on 2020-September-11, 15:00, said:

If this isn't a 3♠ bid (which promises diamond tolerance, btw), I don't know what is.

Me and my partner do not have an agreement that you promise tolerance for diamonds here (perhaps we should?).

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-September-11, 16:20, said:

What did the diamond show ? I could be on a very sticky wicket opposite a 2443 minimum opener. I'm much more comfortable if playing a weak NT.

It usually shows 4+♦, though we do open 1♦ with 4432 (with two clubs). 1NT is 15-17 in our system.

[nige1]

BaaBaa "MP. We Vul. What would you bid after this? Would you pass, bid 3♦ or bid 3♠?"
++++++++++++++++++++
Deal rotated to make dealer West. I rank
1. 3♠ = FNJ implies ♦ tolerance.
2. 3♦ = NAT.
3. Pass = NAT
4. X = NEG Dangerous with a doubleton ♥,

---

[smerriman]

 baabaa, on 2020-September-12, 01:33, said:

Me and my partner do not have an agreement that you promise tolerance for diamonds here (perhaps we should?).

It's not really an agreement, just logic. You're a passed hand, didn't preempt in spades, and are telling your partner you're willing to play at the 4 level even if they're void in spades - you *must* have diamonds.

[DavidKok]

So let's say you held ♠QTxxxx, ♥KJx, ♦Tx, ♣Qx. You decide to pass first round (I would not consider this a preempt under any circumstances, but even if you like living dangerously the vulnerability indicates a clear pass). Does your logic, and shortage in diamonds, mean you should pass again this round? You could swap a small spade for the J if you like and repeat the question.

[Cyberyeti]

 DavidKok, on 2020-September-12, 04:11, said:

So let's say you held ♠QTxxxx, ♥KJx, ♦Tx, ♣Qx. You decide to pass first round (I would not consider this a preempt under any circumstances, but even if you like living dangerously the vulnerability indicates a clear pass). Does your logic, and shortage in diamonds, mean you should pass again this round? You could swap a small spade for the J if you like and repeat the question.

Auto 2♠ for us, but not if you play classical. Do you really want to play 3♠/4♦ possibly doubled opposite x, xxxx, AQxxx, AJx, you really want to know you're pretty certain to have a fit, even 2344 hands are no bargain in 3♠. Much better to know you have a fit if you may be forcing partner to the 4 level.

If you're going to play 3♠ as may not contain diamonds also, 8 to the J and out is a better hand type for this, but he FNJ is then much more frequent.

[msjennifer]

Sir,
With the given holding as played in Diamonds there are EIGHT losers so my bid is 3♦.Had I had one more pip in spades and one less in hearts/clubs then 3♠.THis hand has not enough values to bid 3♠ and then find playing in 4♦.Negative double is also ruled out for the same reason.

[msjennifer]

duplicate hence deleted.