Style, or Clear?

[kenrexford]

♠x ♥QJxx ♦Jx ♣AKQxxx

 

1♣-(1♠)-2♣-(2♠)-?

 

(1♠/2♠ are overcalls)

 

I believe that the colors were all white.

[han]

I don't think this is clear at all. It is very unlikely that partner has 4 hearts but I'm going to compete in clubs and might bid hearts to get partner involved. I'd like to know the vulnerability and form of scoring before I say more.

 

 

And just because I like nitpicking: 2S is not an overcall. :)

[655321]

Probably just 3♣, but it would be nice to know vulnerability, at least.

5♣ at favorable is plausible, but is obviously crazy at unfavorable.

[Guest Jlall]

vul/scoring dependent. 5C w/r for sure, 3C otherwise I guess.

[pclayton]

5♣ w/r

3♣ r/w

4♣ w/w, probably r/r too.

[cherdano]

I would bid 3♥.

[brianshark]

3♣ at all colours.

[pclayton]

To those that are bidding 3♣ at equal - are you planning on competing to 4♣ later?

[rogerclee]

5♣ w/r. I might just pass at all other colors, but if I bid something, it'll be 4♣. Bidding more and more clubs helps the defenders evalulate their hands better, and I have little doubt that their ~20HCP game is making. Might as well make them think they're stealing.

[655321]

To those that are bidding 3♣ at equal - are you planning on competing to 4♣ later?

No

[matmat]

3♣

[kenrexford]

Interesting so far.

 

I am curious that no one has mentioned whether they would use a good-bad 2NT in this sequence, or whether that would affect their bidding. I suppose that the 3♥, 4♣, and 5♣ bidders probably would not change their decision by adding that nuance.

[Cascade]

We play that in a competive auction a new suit shows a second suit helping partner to judge subsequent competition.

 

So 3♥ is possible.

 

Having said that I don't think we have ever had the auction where we show a higher ranking suit they always seem to be when we have a major and introduce a minor (or occasionally hearts when our primary fit is spades). I will have to check whether partner thinks the agreement applies here.

[gnasher]

I am curious that no one has mentioned whether they would use a good-bad 2NT in this sequence, or whether that would affect their bidding.

If I were to bid 2NT here it would show a balanced 18-count with a spade stop. Does anyone use good-bad when a suit has already been agreed?

 

I'd bid 3H, partly to help partner to judge what to do over 4S, partly to make a show of strength, and partly to take away their 3D game try.

[mike777]

Interesting so far.

 

I am curious that no one has mentioned whether they would use a good-bad 2NT in this sequence, or whether that would affect their bidding.  I suppose that the 3♥, 4♣, and 5♣ bidders probably would not change their decision by adding that nuance.

good/bad does not apply after a raise....

 

I grant you.....good/bad 2nt is confusing and many are confused :)

[pclayton]

I use G/B a lot but never when we have an established fit.

[kenrexford]

I hear that a lot of people do not use G/B when there is a fit.

 

Why not?

 

What's the functional difference between 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♠-2NT/3♣ and 1♠-2♦-2♠-3♦-3♥? Simply the desire to maintain 2NT as a viable contract?

 

2NT is "used" as G/B with a fit often. Consider, for example, a Jordan 2NT, or 2NT in a competitive auction by Advancer. Sure, these set trumps where trumps has not yet been set, but the situation seems similar.

 

Is this a rule that just has been taught by oral tradition, the justification for which no one remembers, or is there a sound reason?

 

Not that this necessarily matters here, as another call may be more appropriate even with G/B in play.

[whereagles]

I would use a save-suggesting bid over 2♠. I'm sure Ken can tell us which call that is :P

[kenrexford]

I would use a save-suggesting bid over 2♠. I'm sure Ken can tell us which call that is :)

To be honest, I kneee-jerked a simple 3♣ when asked about this away from the table. This was the call made at the actual table, a call that apparently allowed the partnership to stumble-bunny into 5♣ and somehow avoid a 5♦ call by the opponents. The deal could result in 5♥ or 5♣ making for us, 4♠ (ideal defense holds it to 10 tricks) or 5♦ (any defense) for them.

 

The person asking thought that the best/winning call would be 4♣. The idea was that Opener does not really know whether he wants to bid 5♣ or not and can simply place the decision with partner by making that call. I found that analysis to make a lot of sense, especially as we have a new suit, a cuebid, and maybe even GB2N available to show stronger hands.

 

3♥ was also considered, but I thought that this call should show a hand with the Ace or King of hearts and not QJxx.

 

W-R, I like 5♣ also, but at equal 4♣, if it means what my buddy thinks, seems to have a lot of appeal.

 

As an aside, Responder held ♠xxxx ♥A10xx ♦x ♣Jxxx. Any thoughts as to this decision to be practical and just focus the fit rather than to muddle around showing hearts in a spade-dominant auction?

[Gerben42]

good/bad does not apply after a raise....

 

Agreed. This hand is too good for 3♣ though. I bid 3♥ in case partner needs my help to decide if to defend or save vs 4♠.

[gnasher]

What's the functional difference between 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♠-2NT/3♣ and 1♠-2♦-2♠-3♦-3♥?  Simply the desire to maintain 2NT as a viable contract?

 

2NT is "used" as G/B with a fit often.  Consider, for example, a Jordan 2NT, or 2NT in a competitive auction by Advancer.  Sure, these set trumps where trumps has not yet been set, but the situation seems similar.

 

Is this a rule that just has been taught by oral tradition, the justification for which no one remembers, or is there a sound reason?

So, ignoring the question of terminology, you're suggesting using 2NT as an artificial game try, with 3C just competitive (or vice versa)? And your argument is that since you have only one game try available below 3C, you should use it as a generic game try rather than a descriptive one?

 

Here are some good reasons for playing 2NT as a natural game try:

- It's more likely that you can make 3NT than 5C.

- If opener is considering bidding 5C, he's probably happy to play in 4C, so can make a natural game try at the three level.

- If you're going to play 5C, side suit fits will usually be important, so opener will usually also want to make a natural game try at the three level.

 

I don't think that being able to play in 2NT is relevant. If the weak hand doesn't want to play in game it should return to 3C, where its small clubs will be useful as entries and controls.

[kenrexford]

I'm not advocating any specific meaning to 2NT. I'm just asking.

 

My thoughts on the issue, however, are that 2NT as natural seems somewhat strange with a spade bid-and-raise, as opposed to the utility of either a power 2NT or a power 3♣ to invite bigger and better things (probably a Power 2NT, 3♣ as weak, to allow Opener more flexibility). It seems that this approach allows the partnership to still find 3NT, as a Power 2NT would not say, "I have values, but I want to strangely rule out 3NT as a viable contract." That would be weird.

 

The downside is inability to stop on a dime at 2NT. That loss does not seem substantial, frankly.

[gnasher]

Whatever your strong bid shows, it seems obvious to use 2NT as the stronger bid, so as to ensure that 3NT is played from the right hand if that's where you end up.

 

If what you're suggesting is that a "power" 2NT bid says "bid 3C if you're minimum; otherwise bid 3NT unless you have something unusual to show in a side suit", it doesn't seem very far from what I would call a "natural" 2NT, though I suppose it's possible that the bidding would continue 2NT-3NT-5C.

 

If you're suggesting that with a non-minimum responder should routinely describe some feature of his hand, I can see that it might help on some hands, but I don't particularly like the idea of being forced to give the opponents information that may help them with the lead. With a hand such as the one that started this thread, or something similar but a bit stronger, opener will probably still prefer to investigate by making a natural game try at the three level.

[dake50]

2NT --just enough S-stop to expect opening leader tries to find RHO entry to lead S thru.

Besides, their 4S is on. Confusion wins.

[brianshark]

To answer the subsequent question, I don't think after 3♣ I can bid more. I would be extremely uncomfortable selling out, but I think I'd have to. My second choice of bid, if I feel I'm worth pushing to the 4-level, is 3♥. It's a mild overbid (someone mentioned the lack of A/K as a detracting factor - I agree) but at least if it is a double fit deal (as it turned out to be) then partner can know whether to defend or compete and I'll feel my hand is shown then and I can leave partner to make the call. I dislike 4♣ because that is a blind call and doesn't help our partnership tell if it's a double fit deal or a misfit deal. But it, at least, doesn't promise the extras that I don't think this hand has.

 

So a conservative 3♣ just ahead of an aggressive but descriptive 3♥ call in turn ahead of a right-on-values but otherwise undescriptive 4♣ call.