[cherdano]

---

[lycier]

2♣ transfer showing diamonds, planning to jump to 3♠ next round ,it is my choice.

[PhilKing]

I ran a fictitious simulation for this auction, and the chances of being able to transfer to diamonds and jump on the second round were exactly 9% - those pesky opponents interfered on the other 91% of hands. And when they did not compete, we simply gave the opponents a road map.

Show the fit first, then worry about showing your side suit later if need be. Hopefully, we need never show diamonds at all. If partner ends up playing in, of all things, a spade contract, he will not thank us for helping them find the best lead and best defence.

[akwoo]

I was going to say transfer to diamonds, but PhilKing was persuasive.

I don't like the fit jump here; it's going to cause partner to undervalue a diamond singleton. I would fit jump if my diamonds were KQTxxx instead. (Imagine partner with ♠KQxxx; ♥Axx; ♦x; ♣QJxx, which doesn't look too good opposite a fit jump but is actually great on this hand. What you want to say is that secondary heart honors are worthless, not that diamond honors are particularly valuable.)

[Fluffy]

I would bid 4♦ if I had it avaible, if not then 3♦ looks fine, maybe 2♥ and then diamonds works, but its rare. Hiddng support is not going to wrok.

[cherdano]

Since noone is making the case for 4♠, let me be its devil's advocate.
There is a good chance that you have to bid 4♠ on this auction anyway. Especially, if you give them easy ways to show heards (by bidding 2♣, or by bidding 2♥). Given that there is a good chance you have to do it, why not do it right away, and decrease the chance of having to make a decision over 5♥?
Inviting doesn't help all that much - opposite our hand, partner won't know which hands make game good and which don't. Except in the very unlikely case that we can bid 2♥ followed by 3♦.
Meanwhile, if the opponents do bid 5♥ over 4♠, I don't really feel bad - I double, and assuming partner passes, there is a good chance that they made a mistake.
Of course, this may miss a slam. But is that likely, compared to the chance of winning IMPs from the preemptive effect of 4♠?


Did I convince anyone?

[Fluffy]

you convinced me that 4♠ is better than 2♥ . I still like 4♦ wich prepares the terrain over 5♥, it even leaves some slam options open. 4♠ forces us to double when 5♥ comes around, and it will make us cry if its a double fit hand.

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2013-February-12, 04:09, said:

you convinced me that 4♠ is better than 2♥ . I still like 4♦ wich prepares the terrain over 5♥, it even leaves some slam options open. 4♠ forces us to double when 5♥ comes around, and it will make us cry if its a double fit hand.

4♦ looks like a splinter to me; not sure this represents my hand accurately.

[MickyB]

cherdano, on 2013-February-12, 04:02, said:

Since noone is making the case for 4♠, let me be its devil's advocate.
There is a good chance that you have to bid 4♠ on this auction anyway. Especially, if you give them easy ways to show heards (by bidding 2♣, or by bidding 2♥). Given that there is a good chance you have to do it, why not do it right away, and decrease the chance of having to make a decision over 5♥?
Inviting doesn't help all that much - opposite our hand, partner won't know which hands make game good and which don't. Except in the very unlikely case that we can bid 2♥ followed by 3♦.
Meanwhile, if the opponents do bid 5♥ over 4♠, I don't really feel bad - I double, and assuming partner passes, there is a good chance that they made a mistake.
Of course, this may miss a slam. But is that likely, compared to the chance of winning IMPs from the preemptive effect of 4♠?


Did I convince anyone?

If oppo bid 5H then it's likely partner will get to make a decision before we do. I doubt he'll expect this handtype and will be terribly placed to judge. Limited openings don't just reduce the chance of slam on this sort of hand, they also free up partner's double to mean "I'd like to compete to 5S".

[paulg]

cherdano, on 2013-February-12, 04:02, said:

Did I convince anyone?

When holding two aces opposite an opening hand, my first thought is not that the opponents are going to bid at the five-level at adverse vulnerability.

[nige1]

cherdano wrote "Since noone is making the case for 4♠, let me be its devil's advocate. There is a good chance that you have to bid 4♠ on this auction anyway. Especially, if you give them easy ways to show heards (by bidding 2♣, or by bidding 2♥). Given that there is a good chance you have to do it, why not do it right away, and decrease the chance of having to make a decision over 5♥? Inviting doesn't help all that much - opposite our hand, partner won't know which hands make game good and which don't. Except in the very unlikely case that we can bid 2♥ followed by 3♦. Meanwhile, if the opponents do bid 5♥ over 4♠, I don't really feel bad - I double, and assuming partner passes, there is a good chance that they made a mistake. Of course, this may miss a slam. But is that likely, compared to the chance of winning IMPs from the preemptive effect of 4♠?"

IMO 4♠ = 10, 3♦ = 8, 2♥ = 6., I voted for 4♠ before reading any posts, so there's no need for Cherdano to convince me.

---

[CSGibson]

I have a bid to show spade support with a quality diamond suit that could be a source of tricks and invitational values in 3♦. If I don't use it on this hand, I think we should take the convention off the card.

[gszes]

CSGibson, on 2013-February-12, 13:25, said:

I have a bid to show spade support with a quality diamond suit that could be a source of tricks and invitational values in 3♦. If I don't use it on this hand, I think we should take the convention off the card.

not sure why 3d has to to be invitational and i consider this hand game forcing after 1s opener however the sentiment
"If I don't use it on this hand, I think we should take the convention off the card." applies nicely. support with support.

[lalldonn]

cherdano, on 2013-February-12, 04:02, said:

Since noone is making the case for 4♠, let me be its devil's advocate.
There is a good chance that you have to bid 4♠ on this auction anyway. Especially, if you give them easy ways to show heards (by bidding 2♣, or by bidding 2♥). Given that there is a good chance you have to do it, why not do it right away, and decrease the chance of having to make a decision over 5♥?
Inviting doesn't help all that much - opposite our hand, partner won't know which hands make game good and which don't. Except in the very unlikely case that we can bid 2♥ followed by 3♦.
Meanwhile, if the opponents do bid 5♥ over 4♠, I don't really feel bad - I double, and assuming partner passes, there is a good chance that they made a mistake.
Of course, this may miss a slam. But is that likely, compared to the chance of winning IMPs from the preemptive effect of 4♠?


Did I convince anyone?

On principle I hate bidding like this, essentially making all our decisions when I could easily give partner useful info and involve him. But even if I were to analyze your logic I don't like it. Suppose they do bid 5♥ over 4♠. I really doubt they would do this if they were going down 800. If they are down 500 then assuming you were making game it wasn't a very big mistake. If they are down 200 or even making then you are really going to wish you had involved partner in this decision. I suppose the big gain is they go down any amount and you weren't making game, but it seems pessimistic (and random?) to base your action on the presumption that you won't make game here. Honestly I just think they won't bid over 4♠ very often no matter how we get there so there is not enough reason to take partner out of the decision.

Of course it would be different playing precision where a slam is very unlikely. Even then I'm on the fence. I would prefer your strategy the most at neither vul where I think many people will bid 5♥ too often.

[mike777]

as a nonexpert prefer to start with xx which is not an option here.
I basically want to show a limit raise (12-13) and only 3s.

Since xx was not an option put me down for however I can show 12-13 with 3s.

I thought this hand was too good for 2h. Dont know what a fit jump shows or denys here.

concerned if I try that fancy 2c tfr opp will out bid me and I cannot jump to 3s

[Zelandakh]

gszes, on 2013-February-12, 14:52, said:

not sure why 3d has to to be invitational and i consider this hand game forcing after 1s opener

Many play that 3♦ is specifically a fit jump to the 3 level and would bid 4♦ with a fit jump to game. Another approach is for single jumps to show fit and double jumps to be splinters. Since the OP did not mention 4♦ (or 4♥), it is not clear which method is being employed here. Whether the hand is invitational or a game force is a matter of evaluation - if partner happened to have ♥KJTxx then we might be glad of staying lower. Of course, that hand would probably not get posted here. The one call I really do not understand being suggested is Redouble. That is surely offering us the worst of all worlds.