ATB

[Fluffy]

the second one looks like a 3♣ rebid, third one maybe also given that you can bid 4♠ over 3NT.

[gnasher]

the second one looks like a 3♣ rebid, third one maybe also given that you can bid 4♠ over 3NT.

We're talking about a style where 1♠-2♣ doesn't promise club length, so 1♠-2♣;2♠-2NT might be on a 2443 shape. Why, in that style, would opener bid 3♣ on Qxx or AQ?

 

This seems really weird to me. The hand with KJ10xxx suppresses his suit, so the other hand has to bid a strong doubleton to make up for it?

[Fluffy]

ah well, if that's the style I think 2NT rebid is plain wrong. Ranging the club suits from 2NT, 3♣ and 4♣ it is pretty clear IMO that this one belongs to the 3♣ zone.

[jdonn]

If I had to describe the responding hand in one word, I'd choose "clubs" rather than "balanced".  If you can always show clubs after bidding 2NT, your approach sounds OK, but it would be unwise to risk following a route where you might have to suppress the clubs.

 

Is there a risk of that?  For example, is

  1♠-2♣

  2♠-2NT

  3♠-4♣

a suit?

Frankly this sounds to me like the type of criticism of the method that is only made by people who haven't played it.

 

I would think of it this way. Responder's 2NT rebid says "balanced, or semi-balanced with clubs." (surely that second message is a better message than either just "clubs" or just "balanced"). Then over 2NT a 3♣ bid by opener would say "interested in clubs opposite semi-balanced with clubs." If opener doesn't do that then responder has little or no need to announce which hand type he was on.

[gnasher]

Is opener allowed to be "interested in clubs opposite balanced"? That is, can he be 5-4, 6-4 or 5-5?

[Jlall]

All of this with a 5332 shape, opposite a hand that bid notrumps at it's second opportunity?  If you're not going to rebid 2NT, and you're not going to raise 2NT to 3NT, you really have to bid 3NT over 3♠.

I see what you're saying, but with 5 good spades and concentrated values/ not much in the reds it seems reasonable to me to choose the 5-2 spade fit. Maybe you're right though, 5332 is 5332 heh.

 

I disagree with your characterization of 2S as "more spades" though, in my style I would bid 2S even with QTxxx Axx xx AQx, so 2S doesn't say much about spades to me at that point.

 

I would say I've shown spades, then no side 4 card suit/not both red suits stopped if 5332, then clubs. At that point, with 5 very good spades and a suit oriented hand, I might choose spades.

[kenrexford]

Is there something to be said for practicality?

 

I mean, if a call usually shows six spades, and if a raise could be made with two spades, then consider

 

1♠-P-2♣-p-

2♠-p-3♠

 

Let's say that 2♠ almost always shows six, and that 3♠ could be 2+. If this agrees spades, as a practical matter, and if occasionally that means playing 4♠ on a 5-2 fit, is that risk (and the likelihood of that risk) more important to avoid than the benefit of being able to raise spades immediately and thereby have intelligent auctions, where the fit usually exists anyway, even if one side is not really sure?

 

All these strange auctions and decisions to avoid the risk of a 5-2 fit and to cater for this that and the other sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me. This is why I personally make a 2♦ call as a waiting call, because I can live with the much-more-rare situation where Responder goes berzerk in diamonds after bidding clubs first. But I'd rather do the practical raise opposite possibly five than the bid clubs and waiting 2NT and flags and weasels approach.

[ONEferBRID]

I think I may be improving -- or ??

Lately, I've been understanding Ken's posts ...and they make sense !

[Fluffy]

I think I may be improving -- or ??

Lately, I've been understanding Ken's posts ...and they make sense !

I feel sorry for you lol, and I think Ken also :unsure:

[helene_t]

I really don't like the idea of bidding 3♠ over 2NT. Doing so should show a suit that play excellently opposite a singleton and not too pathetically opposite a void.

 

The 2♠ bid must be very specific as it takes up a lot of space. Even playing Acol with partners who force me never to open 1NT with a 5cM I would never make this 2♠ bid on a 5-card suit. Bidding 2♦ on a doubleton I would consider a smaller lie. In 2/1 there is even less of an excuse for bidding 2♠ on a 5-card suit as 2NT and 3♣ are also available for balanced minimums.

 

I think Easts 2NT is OK. Don't feel strongly about it.

 

West might have bid 3♣ over 2NT but I think that is somewhat contrived. West should probably have shown club support after 4♣. If 5♣ is the only way of doing so I can somewhat understand the 4♠ bid. I think we need 4♦ as a generic club raise here, or alternatively play 4NT/5♣ as Turbo.