brianshark Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 While I'm no expert: 1. I open 2NT. 2. I believe the jump shift promises 4♠s. 3. Therefore I believe 4♠ is a minimum signoff and that's what I bid. Roland: Why, if you believe the jump shift promises 4 spades, do you not believe in fast arrival in this situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 Roland: Why, if you believe the jump shift promises 4 spades, do you not believe in fast arrival in this situation? Because we may have a slam on although responder is very weak ... AQxxAAKQxxxxx or AQxxx--AKQxxxKx Give opener room to explore, and before someone asks. No, I would not open any of those hands 2♣. Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 Roland: Why, if you believe the jump shift promises 4 spades, do you not believe in fast arrival in this situation? Because we may have a slam on although responder is very weak ... AQxxAAKQxxxxx or AQxxx--AKQxxxKx Give opener room to explore, and before someone asks. No, I would not open any of those hands 2♣. Roland Seems to me that on the second one the strong hand can bid the slam on his own. It is either a claim or on a finesse. On the first one, it is tougher to diagnose the perfect fit. Even if responder bids 3♠ it is going to be difficult to work out that all that is needed is a singleton club. By the way, I would certainly open the second hand 2♣. It is too good to risk playing in a partial. Sometimes it does go 1♦ all pass. This hand is a virtual claim for game opposite Jxx of spades and out. And the opponents will not always rescue you by balancing. I wouldn't open 2♣ on the first one, but the chances of the opponents balancing is higher since they have more cards. Getting to slam is another matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 By the way, I would certainly open the second hand 2♣. It is too good to risk playing in a partial. Sometimes it does go 1♦ all pass. This hand is a virtual claim for game opposite Jxx of spades and out. And the opponents will not always rescue you by balancing. I wouldn't open 2♣ on the first one, but the chances of the opponents balancing is higher since they have more cards. Getting to slam is another matter. Count again. The first one has more high cards (19) than the second one (18), so please explain why the opponents are more likely to balance if you open 1♦ with those cards (first hand)? The second hand has an extraordinary shape. There is no reason to believe that it will go all pass when you open 1♦. Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 I am late to this thread, and find that just about everything I wanted to say has been said by (especially) Roland and Josh. The 'expert' is not. There may be hands on which a fake jumpshift into a 3 card major makes sense, but this sure wasn't one... not even close. Yes, a hand full of Aces is often more oriented to suit play than to notrump, and may well function best as dummy, but so what? The first priority is to tell partner what you have, and surely 2N (and this is a super-max 20-21 2N) does that job far, far better than 1♦... a call that endplays opener into a horrendous distortion at his next bid unless he is very lucky (partner responds 1N, for example.. now 3N is ok). As for the 3♠/4♠ choice, I am not as adamant as Josh who says that he would never bid 4♠... I can see the benefit of using 4♠ as conveying a meaning different from 3♠, but my hand is too good to sign off. Anyone who merely counts points, and argues that this is a very weak hand, doesn't understand valuation. I would bid 4♠ with the same hand and 4=4=3=2 shape, for example, but it is too easy to conjure up 4=1=6=2 or 4=0=6=3 hands where slam is wonderful. At the same time, wild horses couldn't make me splinter.... that is a call for which I am about an Ace short: Kxxx Axxx Jxxx x is a clear splinter. BTW, it will be no surprise to those familiar with my postings that I agree wholeheartedly with Roland's stance on 2♣ openings on the hands he posited for opener. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 By the way, I would certainly open the second hand 2♣. It is too good to risk playing in a partial. Sometimes it does go 1♦ all pass. This hand is a virtual claim for game opposite Jxx of spades and out. And the opponents will not always rescue you by balancing. I wouldn't open 2♣ on the first one, but the chances of the opponents balancing is higher since they have more cards. Getting to slam is another matter. Count again. The first one has more high cards (19) than the second one (18), so please explain why the opponents are more likely to balance if you open 1♦ with those cards (first hand)? The second hand has an extraordinary shape. There is no reason to believe that it will go all pass when you open 1♦. Roland I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the chances of our side making a game on the second hand opposite almost nothing are better than they are on the first hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.