What's your style?

[gwnn]

I can't stop myself from linking to all these threads! help me.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=24728&hl=

[hrothgar]

I'm torn on this one:

 

I think that I would bid 2♠. In my experience, Moysians play best when you have a good side suit as a source of tricks. However, I wouldn't complain if partner decided to bid 2♣ instead.

[helene_t]

In my experience, Moysians play best when you have a good side suit as a source of tricks.  However, I wouldn't complain if partner decided to bid 2♣ instead.

You need to draw trumps before you can set up clubs, so either clubs must be running or you must afford to lose a tempo after having drawn trumps (and you may need ♦Q to be an entry). In both cases, 2♣ probably makes as well. And if p has a good hand with 4 spades you will probably end up in 3NT whatever you do.

[georgeac]

some p's i bid 2s others i bid 2c, with the majority i bid 2c

[andy_h]

With these cards my style is 2♠ for the game. But 2♣ if the hand was xxx x KQx AK109xx.

[Phil]

One of the great things about language is that it evolves.

eh, I could care less.

[helene_t]

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

[....]

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

Maybe those were not derived from "anyway" but from "anywise". Merriam-Webster's online dictionary has this to say:

Main Entry: any·ways

Pronunciation: \-ˌwāz\

Function: adverb

Date: 13th century

 

1 a archaic : anywise b dialect : to any degree at all

2 chiefly dialect : anyhow, anyway

Maybe "anyways" emerged as an alternative spelling mimicking a way of pronouncing "anywise", then later people skipped the s because it was perceived as being derived from "in any way". This could all be irrelevant to the modern use of "anyways" which I would think comes from "anyway" and not from "anywise". "Anyways" could have gotten its modern s from analogy with some other word, for example "always". I am just speculating.

[mikeh]

I would rebid 2♣, regardless of whether I was playing a weak notrump (in which case, in the style that I play, 2♠ promises 4 card support) or a more standard method, in which 3 card raises are permitted.

 

The clubs are strong enough that there at imps I'm not overly concerned about a 6-1 club fit with a 5-3 spade fit. If that is the situation, we may not do well in spades anyway... my clubs will be of limited use if partner is weak, since he probably can't draw trump and enjoy the clubs.

 

It would be useful to be playing Meckwell here, such that we would know that he isn't weak with 5-4+ in the majors. This knowledge would suggest that he has some values, since the opps, marked with at least one red fit, have not competed, and this, again, makes 2♣ better. The more he has, the better positioned we will be both for game and, importantly, for slam purposes.

 

While it is true that there will be some hands on which game can be bid, and often made, after a spade raise and would be missed after a 2♣ rebid, there will also be hands on which game is easier to reach after 2♣ then spades, because partner will infer the good/long clubs and distribution..... a 2♠ raise is often on a weak notrump hand, while rebidding clubs then spades shows more distributional power. I concede this is a minor factor.

 

However, given the opps' silence, there is some chance of slam and I think that 2♣ is a far superior call than 2♠ for those purposes. We can bid a quiet 2♣ and then become enthusiastic later.

 

Finally, while partner rates to hold 5 spades much of the time, he will also frequently hold only 4, and he may stretch to invite game and end at the 3-level on an inadequate fit.

 

I think it is very close, and I doubt that even running a simulation would provide clear guidance (if only because the further rounds of bidding will be so difficult to predict).