[diana_eva]

IMPs, white vs red

---

X is support. Which one has priority, your super diamonds, or the three little spades?

[apollo1201]

I think the tone and chosen words you used for your question pretty much give the answer, don't they?

I don't want partner to linger in a fragile 5-3 or maybe 4-3 fit with an almost solid suit of my own. If he has 6 he will find a way to bid them again and I'll support.

Last, over 3H or 4H if it feels right to bid more (partner balancing with X, or showing some kind of desire to compete), you will be able to bid some number of S, clearly suggesting top diamonds and a very dubious fit that partner is welcome to pull.

[The_Badger]

It's a minimum opening hand despite the great ♦ suit, and rebidding 3♦ is an overbid, I feel. Your not overstating you hand if you use a support double because you have exactly the holding that a support double guarantees - 3 card trump support.

[neilkaz]

3♦ is an overbid with this minimum opening so I will show PD that I have 3♠

[mikeh]

I'd pass.

I have shown an opening bid. There is no risk that partner will pass this out when the hand belongs to us. Sure I hold extra diamonds, but I would presumably not have opened this with xxx xxx KQJx Axx (I hope!), so thinking 'I have to bid because I have extra diamonds' requires forgetting that 'I already opened based on those extra diamonds'.

Meanwhile, this is an appallingly bad hand for a 4=3 spade fit and not very good for most 5-3 fits. My hand rates to take very few tricks in spades....what are the chances that partner can pull trump and run the diamonds?

3♦ is an egregious overbid, unless one is playing some form of good-bad 2N (where all good 3 bids bid an artificial 2N, and thus 3♦shows only a desire to compete to 3♦. I wouldn't expect an I/A partnership to be playing good-bad.

Pass is the most under-utilized call in the game.

Btw, there is a style in which passing here denies 3 card spade support. My own view is that such a style is unplayable in the long run, precisely because of hands like this (I don't mean 7=3 hands, I mean hands that are sub-minimum in hcp and offer little playability unless partner can act).

Obviously one can construct hands on which acting now is essential, since LHO may be raising hearts and partner may be stuck with a modest hand with 6 spades and short hearts, but our own (awful) heart holding makes that improbable.

[ahydra]

I play a style where 3D doesn't necessarily show a big hand, as one can X first with that. Seems to be popular in ACOL countries. As such I'm not opposed to 3D here - ideally you'd like a bit more, but you do have 7 playing tricks. 2S seems like a misdescription, you want to play in your KQJxxxx.

Similar hand from today: xxx Axx KQJTxx K, both NV at IMPs, You're dealer, open 1D (X) 1S (p). I bid 2S and partner jumped to 4S on Q9xx 9x A9x AQxx, going down vs the cold 3NT. Although partner probably should have offered CoG, I think 2D is a better description of my hand.

ahydra

[gszes]

I would x here and quietly retire from the bidding if p bids a mere 2s. I do not think 2s will be our best spot but I am willing to make some small sacrifices that will allow me to better describe my strong hands. This means that if I x now and later correct 2s to 3d it shows extra values (much like a direct 3d bid would over 2h). The greater chance of game with the strong hands takes priority over correcting a part score.

[bravejason]

I can't decide. I like to bid so probably double. Since West passed, I'm guessing that partner has a decent hand. The question I have is why not open three diamonds instead one diamond? That seems like a much better description of South's hand. I don't see South as holding an opening bid.