[pescetom]

MP

---

1NT is 15-17, 2♦ was a GF with 5+ cards, 2♠ does not promise or deny extras.
How do you continue and what are your thoughts?

[Cyberyeti]

We need to agree diamonds, slam is potentially on opposite as little as xx, A, AKxxxx, xxxx, and on the spade or possibly diamond finesse on less suitable holdings particularly if they lead a spade.

Unsure of style in the 2/1 auction and what 3♣ would have shown by responder. Also unsure what I do with 4522 with the same high cards at this point.

[mike777]

 pescetom, on 2026-June-01, 15:00, said:

MP

---

1NT is 15-17, 2♦ was a GF with 5+ cards, 2♠ does not promise or deny extras.
How do you continue and what are your thoughts?

4C seems clear, agree D, club control
I have a non minimum.

[mike777]

 Cyberyeti, on 2026-June-01, 16:07, said:

We need to agree diamonds, slam is potentially on opposite as little as xx, A, AKxxxx, xxxx, and on the spade or possibly diamond finesse on less suitable holdings particularly if they lead a spade.

Unsure of style in the 2/1 auction and what 3♣ would have shown by responder. Also unsure what I do with 4522 with the same high cards at this point.

Make the 2D the 2C and I would bid 5D over 3D
Sometimes I have a max for my bidding

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

4D, should also show SI, I would assume, that it also imples club shortage.

I guess 3C instead of 3D would have been natural, I prefer FSF, and I am not sure,
if 3D showes 6+.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Cyberyeti]

mike777, on 2026-June-01, 17:07, said:

Make the 2D the 2C and I would bid 5D over 3D
Sometimes I have a max for my bidding

The reason I asked the question, was whether 4♦ could be 4522 (maybe better than this) or whether it had to be 4531.

Also style matters here, with 4-6 do you rebid 2♥ or 2♠. If you're known to be 4-5, 3♥ is a forward going waiting bid over 3♦.

[apollo1201]

 Cyberyeti, on 2026-June-02, 01:48, said:

The reason I asked the question, was whether 4♦ could be 4522 (maybe better than this) or whether it had to be 4531.

Also style matters here, with 4-6 do you rebid 2♥ or 2♠. If you're known to be 4-5, 3♥ is a forward going waiting bid over 3♦.

Partner obviously shows 6+D and either slam potential or the impossibility to conclude(in case I am 64, eg, and tjey do not stop C very well).
So 4D and it should be 4531. With 4522 we could probably bid 3NT, or 4NT with extras, or (but I am not sure which is what) a waiting 3H (if it does not show anything more, like 6 or a good 5-bagger) or 3S (unless it shows 65).

[jillybean]

I concur 4♦. 4♦ could be 4522, if we are 4531 it will be revealed later in the auction.

[mike777]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-June-02, 01:48, said:

The reason I asked the question, was whether 4♦ could be 4522 (maybe better than this) or whether it had to be 4531.

Also style matters here, with 4-6 do you rebid 2♥ or 2♠. If you're known to be 4-5, 3♥ is a forward going waiting bid over 3♦.

With 6H and 4S and a nonminimum I would rebid 2S, with a minimum I would rebid 2NT!(6H) over 2D.

[mike777]

pescetom, on 2026-June-01, 15:00, said:

MP

---

1NT is 15-17, 2♦ was a GF with 5+ cards, 2♠ does not promise or deny extras.
How do you continue and what are your thoughts?

A bit off topic since I already answered the original question however I would add not playing 2S promises extras may create problems on other deals.

For example, this same shape but a hand with minimum HCP..
fwiw I would then have rebid 2H, showing exactly 5H and a minimum.

[pescetom]

mike777, on 2026-June-02, 09:39, said:

A bit off topic since I already answered the original question however I would add not playing 2S promises extras may create problems on other deals.

For example, this same shape but a hand with minimum HCP..
fwiw I would then have rebid 2H, showing exactly 5H and a minimum.

Urgh... I would not have been amused to miss a spades fit at this level.
I think shape is much more important than (extra) strength here.
I don't think this is in discussion in Europe.
But I recognise it is still an issue in US, having followed that other forum.
IIRC BWS still has 2S promising extras (curiously, they omitted to poll it for 2017, unlike 1♦-2♣;2M which IIRC was polled and was redefined as not promising extras).

[mike777]

 pescetom, on 2026-June-02, 12:23, said:

Urgh... I would not have been amused to miss a spades fit at this level.
I think shape is much more important than (extra) strength here.
I don't think this is in discussion in Europe.
But I recognise it is still an issue in US, having followed that other forum.
IIRC BWS still has 2S promising extras (curiously, they omitted to poll it for 2017, unlike 1♦-2♣;2M which IIRC was polled and was redefined as not promising extras).

If I rebid 2H, showing 5 and a minimum, partner is permitted to rebid 2S. I have not denied spades.


As for the 6H and 4S hand, with that shape, most of the time I would not evaluate it as a minimum so often I would rebid 2S.

Agree after 1D-2C-Major, I am not promising extras


I would only add in 2026 having uncontested 2/1 gf auctions are becoming something rarer
Either the opponents are bidding or partner supports our suit immediately

[pescetom]

mike777, on 2026-June-02, 12:41, said:

If I rebid 2H, showing 5 and a minimum, partner is permitted to rebid 2S. I have not denied spades.

But he will not do so holding secondary hearts support, now you miss the spades fit and he has little real idea of your shape.

mike777, on 2026-June-02, 12:41, said:

Agree after 1D-2C-Major, I am not promising extras

And what is the real difference?

mike777, on 2026-June-02, 12:41, said:

I would only add in 2026 having uncontested 2/1 gf auctions are becoming something rarer
Either the opponents are bidding or partner supports our suit immediately

That sounds like a good argument for showing shape as soon as possible rather than using 2 level to refine strength in an already game forcing context.
Although as we play, partner has very limited ways of supporting our major suit immediately with sufficient to force to game.

[mike777]

Never ending debate, if you are happy with results, good luck.

As I mentioned I am finding fewer uncontested 2/1 auctions, even fewer when opener has extras or responder does not immediately support my suit.

[pescetom]

The debate that most interested me is the one raised by cyberyeti: after 3D, what are the meanings for Opener's rebids of 3H, 3S, 3N, 4C here?

I think that when Opener has SI in diamonds after 3D then as Jillybean said it's intermediate/pickup standard to simply fix suit by bidding 4D inviting a control-bid or even just 4NT asking keycards. So Responder (but also the opponents) has no certainty about Opener's shape.

But a more advanced and/or regular partnership really should have clear agreement about the bids inbetween too. Are 3H and 3S shaping out naturally, or is 3H just a noise and 3S something else? Can they be advance control-bids if we later embrace diamonds? Is 3NT just shaping out 4522 or is it desire to play, maybe even based on a diamonds singleton with clubs stopped? Is 4C shaping out 4513 (with a successive 4NT to play) or is it clubs control agreeing diamonds, or something else? How does the failure to make any of these bids nuance 4D?

I have my own preferences and my own actual agreements, which do not fully coincide. But interested in those of others here.

[mike777]

 pescetom, on 2026-June-03, 06:01, said:

The debate that most interested me is the one raised by cyberyeti: after 3D, what are the meanings for Opener's rebids of 3H, 3S, 3N, 4C here?

I think that when Opener has SI in diamonds after 3D then as Jillybean said it's intermediate/pickup standard to simply fix suit by bidding 4D inviting a control-bid or even just 4NT asking keycards. So Responder (but also the opponents) has no certainty about Opener's shape.

But a more advanced and/or regular partnership really should have clear agreement about the bids inbetween too. Are 3H and 3S shaping out naturally, or is 3H just a noise and 3S something else? Can they be advance control-bids if we later embrace diamonds? Is 3NT just shaping out 4522 or is it desire to play, maybe even based on a diamonds singleton with clubs stopped? Is 4C shaping out 4513 (with a successive 4NT to play) or is it clubs control agreeing diamonds, or something else? How does the failure to make any of these bids nuance 4D?

I have my own preferences and my own actual agreements, which do not fully coincide. But interested in those of others here.

Fwiw as I mentioned having an uncontested 2/1 gf auction is somewhat rare.
2S promises non-minimum so more rare
Now:
3H=6-4
3S=6-5
3NT= to play
4C=control, agree D, 4H over 4C would be KB
4D=agree D, deny club control, however promises 2+ keys, 4H over 4D would be KB
5D=to play

[pescetom]

mike777, on 2026-June-03, 10:24, said:

Fwiw as I mentioned having an uncontested 2/1 gf auction is somewhat rare.
2S promises non-minimum so more rare
Now:
3H=6-4
3S=6-5
3NT= to play
4C=control, agree D, 4H over 4C would be KB
4D=agree D, deny club control, however promises 2+ keys, 4H over 4D would be KB
5D=to play

Thanks.
Interested in others, in particular DavidKok if reading.
My current effective agreements (basically what I would assume based upon partnership experience, this is little discussed and our system document stops at 3D) are similar but not identical:
3H=6-4
3S=6-5
3NT=to play (nebulous, does not deny diamonds singleton or make specific promises about clubs)
4C=undefined, avoid
4D=agree D, says nothing about club control, invites control-bid
4H=RKCB(D)
4S=undefined, avoid
4NT=quantitative
5D=to play.

Having 4C undefined is clearly not optimal. I can live with your solution for 4C which has obvious pragmatic benefits, were I to play it then 4H over my 4D should show control in clubs.
I do wonder if there is benefit in playing 3H, 3NT and 4C differently.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2026-June-03, 14:40, said:

Thanks.
Interested in others, in particular DavidKok if reading.
My current effective agreements (basically what I would assume based upon partnership experience, this is little discussed and our system document stops at 3D) are basically similar:
3H=6-4
3S=6-5
3NT=to play (nebulous, does not deny diamonds singleton or make specific promises about clubs)
4C=undefined, avoid
4D=agree D, says nothing about club control, invites control-bid
4H=RKCB(D)
4S=undefined, avoid
4NT=quantitative
5D=to play.

Having 4C undefined is clearly not optimal. I can live with your solution for 4C which has obvious pragmatic benefits, were I to play it then 4H over my 4D should show control in clubs.
I do wonder if there is benefit in playing 3H, 3NT and 4C differently.

So you can’t bid 4=5=2=2 hands with nothing in clubs? Bidding 3N seems flat out weird…it’s 95% they’re leading clubs

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2026-June-03, 14:42, said:

So you can’t bid 4=5=2=2 hands with nothing in clubs? Bidding 3N seems flat out weird…it’s 95% they’re leading clubs

I think you misunderstood me, maybe I was not clear... with 4=5=2=2 and nothing in clubs we currently bid 4D, 3NT is to play.
My question was whether instead it makes any sense to play 3N as showing precisely 4=5=2=2 shape with no (or limited) promise about clubs.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2026-June-03, 14:48, said:

I think you misunderstood me, maybe I was not clear... with 4=5=2=2 and nothing in clubs we currently bid 4D, 3NT is to play.
My question was whether instead it makes any sense to play 3N as showing precisely 4=5=2=2 shape with no (or limited) promise about clubs.

Personally, I think using 3H as the punt…4=5=1=3 or 4=5=2=2 nothing in clubs is far superior to raising 3D to 4D, and the cost on the 4=6 major hand can be dealt with in various ways, usually depending on hand strength and suit texture. One relatively easy way is to rebid 2H, trusting partner to bid spades with a 4 card suit.

Picture partner with Kx xx AKJxxxx Kx. Any complaint about the bidding? Any complaint about seeing that hand in dummy on the inevitable club lead v 3N? I’m speaking of 3N with no club card, of course.