What would you do now?

[AlexJonson]

Yikes! I plussed a post which Lurp also plussed. Maybe I was wrong :rolleyes:

 

But, I don't think so. I actually like the 2S rebid, and believe it makes 4C automatic now. We have described and brought partner into the picture, which an immediate 3N would not have done.

 

My post Agua...I understand your hesitation.

 

I must admit (being an honest soul) that 'bidding my shape' with 4C is very attractive.

 

Probably, I should have bid 4C, but what are the two hands that make slam on this hand so attractive when partner won't bid on anyway after my GF and 3NT? What hand does partner place me with that is worse than this one?

[mike777]

Please note the careful wording in the OP. OP said he would assume that 2s is gf.

 

He was careful to not say that partner would or that there was a firm agreement.

 

In fact he states there are no agreements.

 

Not sure about expert level bidding in the UK but in most places 2s is not gf.

 

I grant if you assume this is a dead minimum and not extra shape and power that bidding feels a bit different but I would still bid 4c.

[AlexJonson]

Please note the careful wording in the OP. OP said he would assume that 2s is gf.

 

He was careful to not say that partner would or that there was a firm agreement.

 

In fact he states there are no agreements.

 

Not sure about expert level bidding in the UK but in most places 2s is not gf.

 

 

First off:

 

'You assume 2S is FG and you are playing 2/1 game force with a 1NT response semi-forcing.'

 

Didn't notice the bit where Lamford said 'please disagree with my assumption...'

 

And despite lamford's diffidence, he is an A/E player.

 

Second:

 

No problem at all with your interpration, which has caused me to understand this auction better.

But normally on the forums I accept OP view of the world. Otherwise no point posting.

[MrAce]

 

The only way to get the message across of the

power of our hand is with a bid of

 

4h

 

No p beyond intermediate would have trouble

knowing this is heart shortness and club support

....

 

I wonder what did you think 4♣ would show, ♥ length ?

 

no pd beyond a total stranger to this game would have trouble knowing this is ♥ shortness and ♣ support.

 

I also find 3♥ replies amusing. I wont even bother to write hands that they deserve when they pass pd's 3NT. But even worse, lets assume pd bid 4♦ with Qx, after all he may not have ♥ stopper and u bet that you will never convince him his jxxxxx ♣ is the trump and that he should not correct our 5 or 6♣ bids to 6♦.

 

And what are we supposed to bid over 4♦ ?

 

-5♣ ?

 

-6♣ ?

 

-4NT and bid 6♣ if he has 1 keycard ? Does that mean trumps are ♣ ? Or does that mean choose between minors ? Or do we even know if he has a ♠ control ?

 

I agree with gszes that with a lot of hands and ♥ stopper he would have bid NT already (unless his ♣ suit is worth to mention such as AJxxxx(x). So i am not really worried about losing 2♠+1♣ in 5 ♣.

 

4♣ not only shows perfect map of our hand but also the most effective bid in order to learn pd's spade holding. He bids 4spade and u are on your way to slam he bids 4 heart and u have an easy 5 club bid.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Good hand for a 4♥ ANTI-BLUHMER

I like the 4H! splinter ( no matter if it is a stiff Ace ) .

[benlessard]

Just by curiosity what is the reason of playing 2S as 100% GF ? Its nice to be able to bid 2S with just reverse strenght no ? On this hand it's great that 2nt is forcing, 2nt is catchall here so 3C strongly suggest that 5C/6C is possibly better than 3Nt and from my hand it look like 6C might be a good spot. I prefer to bid 4C (4153) rather than 4H(void IMO). 3H Advanced cuebid or half a stopper is a great alternative (Normally 3H followed by 4C pull would describe the hand very nicely) but here over 3S 4C will more suggest COG than slam).

[Zelandakh]

Given that 4C here already shows 4153 shape, is there an argument that having 4H available for exactly the same hand is redundant and that perhaps it should actually show a void instead?

[aguahombre]

Given that 4C here already shows 4153 shape, is there an argument that having 4H available for exactly the same hand is redundant and that perhaps it should actually show a void instead?

Yes there is that argument --a very good one. And to those (not many I hope) who would counter that the stiff Ace is equivalent, it is not. It might have the same effect for counting heart losers, but it is an Ace which would be expected to be elsewhere by partner when the auction continues.

 

Very simplistic, I know. But, perhaps needed to be stated, anyway.