What's your style?

[Echognome]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skxxhxdqxxcakt9xx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♣ - 1♠;

?[/hv]

 

2♣ or 2♠?

[Phil]

Pretty sure I know how this is going to go around here.

 

I'm a 2♣ bidder.

[gwnn]

2♠ always :rolleyes:

[helene_t]

2♣

[manudude03]

2♠ assuming we have a way to check back for support.

[neilkaz]

2♣ with a good 6 card suit and only 3♠

 

Most of my partners prefer it when I don't give them 3 card support initially. That being said, if I had only 5♣ or my 6 card suit were really trashy, I'd bid 2♠ here.

[awm]

No big surprise that I bid 2♠ on this.

 

While this is somewhat of an oversimplification, it seems like raising is often good when partner has exactly five spades (reaches a better partial when partner's passing, sets the suit in a non-awkward way, etc) whereas rebidding clubs is often good when partner has only four spades (better partial, more room to negotiate for 3NT, etc). Assuming we have this shape and partner has a 1♠ response, I ran a simulation to find out how many spades partner should hold. The results:

 

(1) Assuming a style where a 1♠ response can contain much longer diamonds (i.e. 1♠ response shows 4+♠ and not exactly 4-4 in the majors) partner will have exactly five spades about 45.4% of the time, six or more spades about 16.8% of the time, and exactly four spades about 37.8% of the time.

 

(2) Assuming a style where a 1♠ response denies holding five diamonds with only four spades (i.e. 1♠ shows 4+♠ but not exactly 4-4 in the majors and not 4♠ and 5+♦) then partner will have exactly five spades about 50.4% of the time, six or more spades about 18.8% of the time, and exactly four spades about 30.8% of the time.

 

Again, there's obviously more to it than this. What works best for you will depend on your methods after the single raise, your methods after the 2♣ rebid, exactly when you respond 1♠ versus 1♦ (versus raising clubs?) and so forth. The tradeoffs are not exactly clear, nor are the relative sizes of gains and losses. But it does seem that partner is more likely to have exactly 5♠ than exactly 4♠ by a fairly substantial margin.

[jdonn]

I bid 2♣ because with a suit this good I think it's way safer. This may be a change from an answer I would have given in the past.

 

Adam I think you are missing something. Let's agree that it only matters if partner is less than invitational, since if he takes another bid we can go to spades. In that case the opponents often balance, or maybe LHO doubles 2♣ with the red suits, and then we can bid 2♠ freely next round and really get our hand across. Obviously then we not only recover when partner has 5 spades but we don't risk him having 4 spades, we are way ahead of someone who raised directly and might even have been invited to the 3 level based on a fit.

 

Also it's imps. If 2♠ makes then 2♣ probably makes given how good our clubs are, but I think the opposite is true far less often. In other words the cost of 2♣ when partner has 5 spades is a lot lower than the cost of 2♠ when partner has 4 spades imo.

[maggieb]

I would bid 2♣ on this hand, but I would bid 2♠ if you made the hand a little stronger. I am much more concerned about missing 4♠ with something like Axx x QJx AKT9xx if I bid 2♣. Also if we are playing a partial, my club suit is so good that I think 2♣ will often fare fine.

 

I also want to add that it's not like bidding 2♠ is a magic ticket to bidding every making game when partner has spade length. You will often not get there anyway.

 

Good comments by jdonn and awm.

[helene_t]

2♠ may win when p has 9-10 points and 5 spades and bids game over 2♠ but passes 2♣. But then he will probably have some wasted values in hearts so maybe we shouldn't be too keen on a thin 4♠. If he has 5 spades with a strong hand it is probably better to bid 2♣ as it leaves more space. If he has a weak hand it probably doesn't matter at IMPs although 2♠ may be more attractive at MPs. If he has 8-9 points with 6 spades he won't pass 2♣ anyway.

 

T-Walsh is cool when you want to show 3-card support without bypassing 1NT or 2♣, but with this particular hand I see no serious downside to just bidding 2♣.

 

I don't like raising on 3 too often. If p tries for game over it, 2NT, 3♣ or even 3♦ could be the last making contract. It is even worse when people raise 1♥, bypassing a 4-card spades. Then all five denominations are still open.

[whereagles]

I've tried 2♠ on 6-3 hands like this a couple of times and wasn't too happy about the outcomes... lol.

 

Still, with a singleton I think I can survive this one. 2♠ it is. Had it been a 3226 I think 2♣ is preferrable.

[gwnn]

Let's agree that it only matters if partner is less than invitational, since if he takes another bid we can go to spades. In that case the opponents often balance, or maybe LHO doubles 2♣ with the red suits

isn't "often" a significant overbid?

[Gerben42]

I have 6 good Clubs, seems 2♣ is obvious. This might look like an oversimplification but 2♠ here is masterminding.

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skxxhxdqxxcakt9xx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♣ - 1♠;

?[/hv]

 

2♣ or 2♠?

This is a close decision if the Q♦ were the K I would probably, I didn't look so assume IMPS, bid 2♠ to goad partner to a close game.

[Echognome]

Adam I think you are missing something. Let's agree that it only matters if partner is less than invitational, since if he takes another bid we can go to spades. In that case the opponents often balance, or maybe LHO doubles 2♣ with the red suits, and then we can bid 2♠ freely next round and really get our hand across. Obviously then we not only recover when partner has 5 spades but we don't risk him having 4 spades, we are way ahead of someone who raised directly and might even have been invited to the 3 level based on a fit.

The flip side of this is that maybe it's more difficult for the opponents to compete if they have to commit to the 3-level.

[awm]

I agree with Gnome and Gwynn's points about the frequency of opponents competing not being as high as Josh seems to believe, and the fact that bidding only 2♣ allows them to sneak in a call at the two-level which they then raise to the three-level, whereas 2♠ might shut them out.

 

Another point is that there's a correlation between opponents balancing and the size of the club fit. When you rebid 2♣ into a 6-1 fit, opponents are much more likely to pass you out than when you rebid 2♣ into a 6-3 fit. This makes using the balance to push you from a poor club fit to a better spade fit more dubious.

[EricK]

Why isn't there an option for "I bid 2♣ on hands like this but want my partner to bid 2♠ when he holds hands like this"?

[kenrexford]

I have clubs. Really good ones.

 

I don't have a known spade fit.

 

Seems easy. 2♣.

[jdonn]

For clarification when I said "often" I didn't mean most of the time. I meant something like a significant minority.

[Jlall]

Gwynn's

I guess you are more sympathetic than you used to be wrt people who spell names incorrectly despite it being right in front of their faces :)

 

Anyways I would bid 2S with this hand, I don't want him to pass 2C when we make 4S.

[gwnn]

a simple search yields that my nickname has been misspelled 5 times, although once on purpose by a funny Dutchman, that's probably a little more than people saying aquahombre although not by much.

[zheddh]

Anyways I would bid 2S with this hand, I don't want him to pass 2C when we make 4S.

 

Slight OT. http://grammartips.homestead.com/anyway.html

[Jlall]

Anyways I would bid 2S with this hand, I don't want him to pass 2C when we make 4S.

 

Slight OT. http://grammartips.homestead.com/anyway.html

No.

 

One of the great things about language is that it evolves. It is only as useful as how people use it. As such many words which did not exist before exist now. Anyways is a good example of this.

 

Right now anyways is accepted in the United States. No doubt it will eventually be recognized in England also.

 

Even if you only accept anyways as a colloquialism, treating the forums like a place where only formal speech should be used is silly. Not all writing is formal anymore, we have e-mail, instant messages, text messages, blogs, and facebooks, and forums these days also where we get together and talk and communicate informally with others. We use acronyms, and emoticons, and slang terms!

 

More importantly, it is really sad that you feel the need to attempt to correct someone when you know exactly what they're saying. Even if you had a legitimate grammar-nazi complaint, where does this urge come from? The point is communication. Just some friendly advice but going out of your way to point out what you perceive to be a grammar error makes you seem pretentious, pettifogging and persnickety, not well educated.

 

But good luck being stuck trying to defend against changes that are inevitable. I'm sure you freak out when you hear someone say pleaded instead of pled also.

 

FWIW you might want to look up descriptivism when it comes to language. It really annoys the prescriptivist curmudgeons though :)

[Jlall]

And FWIW here is a reference for anyways in the sense of anyway:

 

"Anyways, it could not be found there." --Conrad, Youth, 1902

 

Presumably you do not think Conrad was uneducated for his use of this word, more than 100 years ago, when it was far LESS popular/common.

 

Going back even further we have Mr. Dickens:

 

“Anyways,” said the damsel, “I am glad punishment followed, and I say so.” --Dickens, Our Mutual Friend, 1865

 

Admittedly that was in speech, so he could have been dumbing it down to the uneducated damsel's level. Still, it shows that people have been using it in this way for a long time. No doubt you have noticed that all hicks like myself use it now!

[zheddh]

Even if you only accept anyways as a colloquialism, treating the forums like a place where only formal speech should be used is silly. Not all writing is formal anymore, we have e-mail, instant messages, text messages, blogs, and facebooks, and forums these days also where we get together and talk and communicate informally with others. We use acronyms, and emoticons, and slang terms!

 

More importantly, it is really sad that you feel the need to attempt to correct someone when you know exactly what they're saying. Even if you had a legitimate grammar-nazi complaint, where does this urge come from? The point is communication. Just some friendly advice but going out of your way to point out what you perceive to be a grammar error makes you seem pretentious, pettifogging and persnickety, not well educated.

 

But good luck being stuck trying to defend against changes that are inevitable. I'm sure you freak out when you hear someone say pleaded instead of pled also.

 

FWIW you might want to look up descriptivism when it comes to language. It really annoys the prescriptivist curmudgeons though :)

Take it easy, dude. Apologize if you found that offensive. Not my intent to offend anyone here!

 

And no I am not trying to defend against changes. I don't care. I am not even a native English speaker! Just posted it here because I used to use "anyways" a lot earlier as well. And then i found out that it is not actually the "right" form.. so i started using "anyway".. thought this might benefit people if they didn't already know..

 

Sorry!