What’s your call?
Over partner’s simple 2♦ rebid, is it just a matter of style whether you choose to move forward? If your partnership is prone to opening 11-and 12-counts, might 2♦ be your last plus? A lucky 13 think the hand’s too good to give up so easily.
The Joyces call 3♦ “forward-going without being reckless.”
The Gordons, on the other hand, deem 3♦ “not pretty.” Then they add, “We have way too much potential to pass.”
Meckstroth’s 3♦ “keeps things open for pard in hopes of getting to game.”
Weinstein says, “3♦ risks going minus for the gain of backing into hearts. Or partner may have a good 2♦ rebid and make 3NT.”
Boehm’s 3♦ “invites game without seriously jeopardizing a plus score.”
Meyers calls it close between 3♦ and 2NT. “It may be right to play 3NT from partner’s side, hence 3♦.”
3♦ by Rigal is “the simple action. We’ll still get to 4♥ when it’s the best spot but there is no point in inviting in hearts and playing the 5–0 fit, is there? I expect partner to advance with 3NT or 3♥ as appropriate.”
Lawrence, too: “3♦ is stronger than 2♥. If partner wishes to bid 3NT, I am happy to accept it. I am not willing to bid 2NT myself.”
“This auction just about guarantees six diamonds,” say the Coopers, “so J–x is fine for a raise. We have too much to pass with such good hearts, and why let them get in a spade bid?”
Six panelists plus the Baron decline to move past 2♦: too much risk, too little reward.
As Cohen passes, he says, “It’s much more likely that this is our last plus score than the remote possibility that we have a white game.”
While Stack says it is tempting to bid, the vulnerability dictates that “it is probably best to go low and not try for game.”
Robinson calls 2♦ a reasonable partscore deal. “At matchpoints, I might rebid 2♥.”
Falk estimates the notrump game to be 34% at best if they reached it, and that requires partner to hold the ♦A–Q–10–x–x–x, (the ♦K onside) and the king with some length in both black suits. “I’d be amazed to lose IMPs playing in 2♦.”