[pclayton]

Playing with a good pard, but NMF or Wolff are undiscussed unfortunately.

What does this sequence promise for minimum suit lengths?

1♦ - 1♥ - 2N - 3♠?

[HeartA]

I voted for 4S+5H. But usually it shows 4S+6H. With 4-4, responder should bid 3C, and so for most 4-5.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Mar 24 2007, 07:58 PM, said:

Playing with a good pard, but NMF or Wolff are undiscussed unfortunately.

What does this sequence promise for minimum suit lengths?

1♦ - 1♥ - 2N - 3♠?

This is sort of a WAG if you have not discussed NMF or Wolff. I voted 4-4 because that's all you really know. Plus, when I discuss it, I show 4-4, so obviously everyone defaults to exactly how I play. Cough, cough.

[hatchett]

I agree, with no discussion 4-4

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would not be certain about the 4th spade,
but he surely has 5hearts.
If you did not discuss the meaning of 3C,
then 3S simply shows values and is looking
for heart support.
Partner may even be unsure, if 3H is forcing /
nonforcing, it could be weak, if 3C was art.

A suit bid showing values is the nat. way to force
to game a discover a 3card suit.

The 2NT bid denied a 4 card spade suit, ... at least
if you dont have special agreements, opener gave
up on a sapde contract.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

I agree with Ken, what to play without discussion is not very interesting.

[jillybean]

5♥, 3 good or 4♠ and a hand unsuitable for nt.

[kenberg]

I was another vote for 4-4.

I have a partner with whom 1D-1H-2N denies a major, but playing with a good partner who hasn't told me of this preference, I would expect four spades and a balanced hand to be possible. With no discussion, I would also expect 3H over 2N to be forcing. Both of these treatments are reasonably standard (or maybe widespread is a better word), though not universal (the same partner who plays 2N as denying four spades also treats 3H as non-forcing). Bidding 3C is of course forcing, but beyond that it's a gamble if not previously discussed. So it seems to me that 3S is the most straightforward way to check for a spade fit, and partner should take it as that and nothing beyond.

But of course partner will reason it out differently.

[skjaeran]

Without discussion I'd expect 3♣ to be some form of check back and 3♠ to be exactly 4-4.

[bid_em_up]

skaeran, on Mar 25 2007, 03:19 PM, said:

Without discussion I'd expect 3♣ to be some form of check back and 3♠ to be exactly 4-4.

Even without discussion, playing with a good partner, I would expect 3C to be some sort of checkback so 3S must be 5♠/6♥. Opener theoretically denied a 4 card major with the 2N rebid but he may still have 4 spades. 3S is a ridiculous call holding 4-4 in the majors when you could bid 3C instead.

It is either 1) 5 spades, 6 hearts, or 2) it is an advanced splinter/cue bid for diamonds. Take your pick.

[helene_t]

I'd think it's more likely to be 4-5 (or longer) but with 3-card heart support and no aversion against notrump I'd bid 3NT just in case. With 3352 I'd be unless 4♥ unless my clubs are AK or AQ, and also with 2353 with xxx of clubs. Four-and-a-half hearts and four spades, in other words.

As responder, I would bid 3♠ only with 4-5 or longer. With 4-4 I'll improvise an undiscussed 3♣ unless my values are very soft and/or I have values in clubs.

[mike777]

pclayton, on Mar 24 2007, 07:58 PM, said:

Playing with a good pard, but NMF or Wolff are undiscussed unfortunately.

What does this sequence promise for minimum suit lengths?

1♦ - 1♥ - 2N - 3♠?

hmm geez I would expect any good pard to rebid 3clubs with almost any of these hands undiscussed. I really do not think partner can only be 4-4 in the majors here, too much room for confusion.

[pclayton]

He had 4-4. I got a little carried away with a super prime 18 with 3-3 in the majors spades.

I think if we had agreed checkback, then 3♠ should be a hand that can't be described with checkback; 5-6 in the major for instance.

Not playing checkback, I think it needs to be 4-4 (or better), otherwise you can't ever reach 4-4 spades.

I think this is an unplayable structure by the way.