[mike777]

Opponents silent

2/1

1D-2C?

Partner surprised me tonight saying 2C always promises 5 over a Diamond.

Is this a good way to play it?

[bluenikki]

mike777, on 2025-December-31, 21:56, said:

Opponents silent

2/1

1D-2C?

Partner surprised me tonight saying 2C always promises 5 over a Diamond.

Is this a good way to play it?

In general, you'd like the most expensive simple suit response to show 5.

But what if you're dealt 3=3=3=4 with too much strength for the 3NT response?

[pescetom]

 mike777, on 2025-December-31, 21:56, said:

Partner surprised me tonight saying 2C always promises 5 over a Diamond.

Is this a good way to play it?

Not in my opinion, particularly if Opener promised 4+ diamonds and did not deny 4 clubs.

[DavidKok]

I play that it promises 5+, but I put 3=3=3=4 in the inverted minor raise. This is supported by the fact that my 1♦ is usually 5+. You can equally well play 2♣ as '5+ or 3=3=3=4'.

Some people play it as a generic 4+, choosing to establish a game force immediately rather than raise with inverted minor on 4 cards.

Notice how responder has an easy bid with any of the following:

• 4(+)♥
  
• 4(+)♠
  
• 5(+)♣
  
• 4(+)♦

What remains is exactly 3=3=3=4.

I would not jump to 3NT with a strong hand, regardless of range.

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2025-December-31, 21:56, said:

Opponents silent

2/1

1D-2C?

Partner surprised me tonight saying 2C always promises 5 over a Diamond.

Is this a good way to play it?

I like it, this is the only sequence where I play 1x:2C natural, gf

[bluenikki]

DavidKok, on 2026-January-01, 05:03, said:

I would not jump to 3NT with a strong hand, regardless of range.

I despise the jump to 3NT with anything but 4333.

[jillybean]

bluenikki, on 2026-January-01, 19:22, said:

I despise the jump to 3NT with anything but 4333.

FYP

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-January-01, 21:58, said:

FYP

The invaluable contribution of AI to understanding what FYP may mean (trusting it is not the partnership terminating dialogue I might imagine after a similar jump)

Quote

FYP means "For You Page," referring to the personalized, algorithm-driven content feed on platforms like TikTok and Instagram that shows users videos and posts tailored to their interests, making it a key area for content discovery and viral trends, often associated with the hashtag #fyp. While primarily a social media term, FYP can also stand for "Final Year Project" in academic settings.
On Social Media (TikTok, Instagram, etc.)
Definition: A curated stream of content (videos, posts) that an app's algorithm thinks you'll like, based on your past interactions (likes, shares, watches).
Creator Goal: Using the #fyp or #foryoupage hashtag aims to get content onto more users' For You Pages for wider visibility.
User Experience: It's how users discover new creators and content that matches their niche interests, driving engagement and making the apps addictive.
In Academia (e.g., Universities)
Definition: A required capstone project for graduating students in certain fields, often called a "Final Year Project" or similar.
In summary, if you see FYP in a social media context, think personalized content feed; if it's in a school or university setting, think graduation project.

[Zelandakh]

pescetom, on 2026-January-02, 13:49, said:

The invaluable contribution of AI to understanding what FYP may mean (trusting it is not the partnership terminating dialogue I might imagine after a similar jump)

In forum terminology, it traditionally stands for "Fixed Your Post". It's mostly a somewhat impertinent way of telling someone that they are wrong but also occasionally used for humour.

[pescetom]

 Zelandakh, on 2026-January-03, 06:13, said:

In forum terminology, it traditionally stands for "Fixed Your Post". It's mostly a somewhat impertinent way of telling someone that they are wrong but also occasionally used for humour.

Got it, thanks.

I don't think 1D - 3NT is really terrible if playing 2/1 and limited to 3334 and 13-14 or whatever... but that is a very small target.

[bluenikki]

pescetom, on 2026-January-03, 09:39, said:

I don't think 1D - 3NT is really terrible if playing 2/1 and limited to 3334 and 13-14 or whatever... but that is a very small target.

But that hand is the one that will disappoint a slambitious partner.

[pescetom]

 bluenikki, on 2026-January-03, 12:43, said:

But that hand is the one that will disappoint a slambitious partner.

In that logic, you play 1♦-4NT as 15-16 and so on.
[EDIT: nonsense, see post below]
You aren't going to erroneously miss or call 6NT, but you will miss 3NT with a speculative hand of long clubs and not that much else.

[johnu]

pescetom, on 2026-January-03, 13:57, said:

In that logic, you play 1♦-4NT as 15-16 and so on.

There's no bridge logic that uses 4NT that way.

[pescetom]

 johnu, on 2026-January-03, 20:41, said:

There's no bridge logic that uses 4NT that way.

You're right of course, 4NT has a natural minimum, so 3NT needs a wider range than suggested.

[DavidKok]

bluenikki, on 2026-January-01, 19:22, said:

I despise the jump to 3NT with anything but 4333.

pescetom, on 2026-January-03, 09:39, said:

I don't think 1D - 3NT is really terrible if playing 2/1 and limited to 3334 and 13-14 or whatever... but that is a very small target.

There is an important difference here in that I think the first post is talking about any (4333) distribution, regardless of four card suit, whereas the second one is limiting the bid to specifically 3=3=3=4 (with four clubs). I think the latter is better, but even better is to leave the bid idle.

Jumping on a strong balanced hand, even with the exact shape known and the range narrowly defined, violates the 'balanced hand principle'. The principle states that, in general, if we have an unbalanced hand opposite a balanced hand that it is preferable to have the unbalanced hand show shape, so that the balanced hand can evaluate the degree of fit and wasted values opposite short suits. This puts the balanced hand in a good position to place the final contract - something that the unbalanced hand cannot do, not knowing whether partner has something like Axx (great for suit play, and potentially slam) versus KQx (likely wasted for slam, and excellent for 3NT) opposite their singleton. If you want to be dramatic, make it a singleton jack. In other words, this proposed 3NT jump makes the wrong hand captain of the auction. This makes it very difficult to investigate slam or 5-of-a-minor contracts on that start.

I'm also worried about the frequency of the bid. Despite your 3NT being narrowly defined (if we limit it to 3=3=3=4 13-14, for example) I think it is more efficient to respond 2♣. Here is a coarse outline of simulated frequencies of simple responses to 1♦-(P)-?, where I took the liberty of using a standard 4+ 1♦ in a 5cM '1♣ 2+ but only 2 on 4=4=3=2' for this simulation:

• 1♥: 38%
  
• 1♠: 31%
  
• 1NT (6-9): 4%
  
• 2♣ (5+ or 3=3=3=4, 12+): 6%
  
• 2♦ (4+, 10+): 4%
  
• 2NT (10-11): 2%
  
• 3♣ (9-11 6+): <1%
  
• 3♦ (5-9 4+): 3%
  
• Other (including pass): 10%

Note that there is a slight numerical error margin on each of these, which also explains why these percentages only add up to 99%.
The frequency of 3=3=3=4 13-14 is around 0.3% (based on a quick set of 100,000 generated 1♦-(P)-? auctions, finding this hand type 305 times), or approximately 1/20th the frequency of 2♣. Using up 9 extra steps of bidding space compared to 2♣, we would in theory want the relative frequency to be somewhere between 1/512 (theoretical optimum for communication), 1/76 (the relay fraction of space used) or 1/39 (a more realistic estimate for actual systems) of the lower bid. In other words, despite the limitation I'd say it still appears between 2-25x as often as you'd want in theory.

I know that raw frequencies aren't the full story - personally I'm much more concerned with the balanced hand principle, and preempting partner by bidding exactly to the safe level - but it goes to show how easy it is to be wasteful of bidding space. There is very little downside to bidding 2♣ and hearing partner out before bidding 3NT on a later round, when partner can be more secure that they have not left something unsaid.

[bluenikki]

DavidKok, on 2026-January-04, 05:46, said:

The principle states that, in general, if we have an unbalanced hand opposite a balanced hand that it is preferable to have the unbalanced hand show shape, so that the balanced hand can evaluate the degree of fit and wasted values opposite short suits. This puts the balanced hand in a good position to place the final contract - something that the unbalanced hand cannot do, not knowing whether partner has something like Axx (great for suit play, and potentially slam) versus KQx (likely wasted for slam, and excellent for 3NT) opposite their singleton. If you want to be dramatic, make it a singleton jack. In other words, this proposed 3NT jump makes the wrong hand captain of the auction. This makes it very difficult to investigate slam or 5-of-a-minor contracts on that start.

So you respond 2♣ and partner makes a descriptive bid (not necessarily! see below.) It would be great if you could relay nondescriptively but you can't. Your partner will take your bid as descriptive and take action accordingly. They may say they take a possible 4333 into account, but you all know that is delusional.

Of course if partner is balanced, they will try to wait for you to describe your hand. And you can't.

[mike777]

 bluenikki, on 2026-January-01, 04:14, said:

In general, you'd like the most expensive simple suit response to show 5.

But what if you're dealt 3=3=3=4 with too much strength for the 3NT response?

With 17+ and that shape my two options are:

1. 2C=gf, l lean towards this option.

2. 3C=artificial gf in D, it helps that one diamond is very often 5+ and always unbalanced.

[DavidKok]

 bluenikki, on 2026-January-04, 09:00, said:

So you respond 2♣ and partner makes a descriptive bid (not necessarily! see below.) It would be great if you could relay nondescriptively but you can't. Your partner will take your bid as descriptive and take action accordingly. They may say they take a possible 4333 into account, but you all know that is delusional.

Of course if partner is balanced, they will try to wait for you to describe your hand. And you can't.

I don't follow. Over 2♣ opener will describe their hand further. Once we know their hand type and long and short suits we can evaluate our hand and decide on a plausible game or slam.
What makes your say that partner won't make a descriptive bid, and why are you talking about relay or camouflage? These are very different concepts, and not particularly relevant on this auction.

[bluenikki]

DavidKok, on 2026-January-04, 10:35, said:

I don't follow. Over 2♣ opener will describe their hand further. Once we know their hand type and long and short suits we can evaluate our hand and decide on a plausible game or slam.
What makes your say that partner won't make a descriptive bid, and why are you talking about relay or camouflage? These are very different concepts, and not particularly relevant on this auction.

Oh yes they are.

The 2♣-er's rebid will not be a known waiting bid. It will allegedly describe the hand. Opener will not patiently continue describing their hand; why should they? They think responder has given additional information about their own hand, so will try to set the strain based on what they think responder has shown.

And on your own premise, a balanced opener's priority is to learn more about responder's hand so that _they_ can place the contract.

[DavidKok]

I feel like you're trying to play some kind of Gotcha! with me. 2♣ describes the hand well, and responder can follow up with 2NT (or bid 3NT on 1♦-2♣; 2NT-?, notice how our nice notrump ladder guarantees we won't miss a slam as opener will bid again with 18-19 opposite 12+, or on 1♦-2♣; 3♣ having found the double minor suit fit, choose between 3♦, 3NT or 4♣ depending on the hand). Over this opener can continue to describe the hand while opener describes theirs.

I hope you find the time to take a closer look at my post, I have the impression you read something different in it from what I intended to write.