Very Unusual versus Unusual

[PhilKing]

There's not much to be jammed after a precise two-suited overcall :)

 

 

I think I'll just pass for the moment.

 

We have a winner. Since 3♠ is available to show a limited hand with spades, pass followed by 4♠ should show moderate hand with a club fit. And it hits the brief - the sequence is very unusual but achievable (there is a 92% chance the auction will continue 4♥-p-p) .

[mikeh]

We have a winner. Since 3♠ is available to show a limited hand with spades, pass followed by 4♠ should show moderate hand with a club fit. And it hits the brief - the sequence is very unusual but is marked (there is a 92% chance the auction will continue 4♥-p-p) .

 

You may well be correct, but I confess that if I were opener I would at least consider that partner was trying to show me something like QJxxxxxx and out: say 8=1=2=2.

 

In fact, that would almost certainly be the hand type for which I would play him.

 

Of course, if we have the agreement that we'd pre-empt to 4♠ with that, I'd have to revise my inference. I don't have that specific agreement.

[nige1]

First off, I agree with you that bidding clubs first, then spades, doesn't work. We might do the same with 4-6 the other way in the black suits. 4♠ opposite his ambiguous opening, too?

Partner hasn't promised any ♠s but he has at least 2 ♣s. Admittedly, 3♣ is a bit of a distortion. IMO, it might work, in practice, when it allows you to introduce ♠ at the 4-level or even the 3-level. Your failure to start with a red-suit should warn partner that you're bidding on shape. 3♠ might be a more sensible alternative but the auction is quite likely to be at 4♥ when it comes back to you. At this vulnerability, you might then balk at 5♣. With prior agreement, you might use an immediate 4♠ or some other sequence, to show this hand.

[aguahombre]

There's not much to be jammed after a precise two-suited overcall :)

 

I think I'll just pass for the moment.

There are hands where we would consider passing, and then bidding our spades -- whatever the message it might convey. But, it is not true about "jamming". Even when righty's 2-suiter is known, lefty's tools are inhibited when we bid above those two suits -- it is their ability to judge level for further competition which is being jammed.

[mcphee]

I venture 3S, sort of what I have. I am not so confident about bidding 5C later but we may not face that problem if partner were to raise spades. When dear partner might have just 2C it seems to me that if I were to bid 5C over 4H they may not make a paddle big enough to save us! Difficult to know what is best.

[PhilKing]

You may well be correct, but I confess that if I were opener I would at least consider that partner was trying to show me something like QJxxxxxx and out: say 8=1=2=2.

 

In fact, that would almost certainly be the hand type for which I would play him.

 

Of course, if we have the agreement that we'd pre-empt to 4♠ with that, I'd have to revise my inference. I don't have that specific agreement.

 

I would assume long spades as well, but those of us who play the dreaded two-card club probably need to redefine our delayed sequences.