bid this 70% slam

[rhm]

I disagree with this, but it's methods dependent over 2♣. We play 2♣ and a positive response is F4N unless a suit is known to be open, which has a lot of advantages, but means you need more playing strength than this for 2♣. We also play 2♣ as FG unless followed by 2N, so it's easy to go overboard, and Kokish so if pard bids 2♦ you only get to show hearts properly at 3♥.

My point was, once you have a very powerful hand with lots of slam potential like the one here (♠43,♥AKT742,♦AKT,♣A8) it is very unlikely that you can not even make game.

I agree it happens, but catering for this scenario costs more than it gains.

And of course it is easy to construct bidding sequences after opening with a one-level, which lead to the right contract when looking at both hands.

At the table where you do not have this advantage the outcome is not always the same, not to mention that opponents sometimes interfere with your bidding.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

My point was, once you have a very powerful hand with lots of slam potential like the one here (♠43,♥AKT742,♦AKT,♣A8) it is very unlikely that you can not even make game.

I agree it happens, but catering for this scenario costs more than it gains.

And of course it is easy to construct bidding sequences after opening with a one-level, which lead to the right contract when looking at both hands.

At the table where you do not have this advantage the outcome is not always the same, not to mention that opponents sometimes interfere with your bidding.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

I think you overestimate how good this hand is, partner can easily have a 6 count where you can't make 3 (and potentially can't make 2) QJxx, x, xxxx, QJxx, and I don't want to force to game opposite a zero count. Once partner bids at the 2 level and has 2 hearts, sure it's great, but I would open this an Acol/Benji strong 2, but not 2♣. Also how much are you going to enjoy it if the auction is at 4♠ by the time you bid again without having shown a suit.

[pescetom]

I too play 2♣ as a game force except when followed by 2NT.

 

But if you play Kokish it is a good idea after 2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠ to exchange the meaning of 3♣ and 3♥

 

So

 

2♣-2♦

2♥-2♠

 

3♣: one suiter in hearts

3♥: two suiter hearts and clubs

Thanks, I'll think about that idea.

What meaning do you assign to the responses to 3♣ one suiter in ♥?

[steve2005]

Steve, Wank was referring to 3h after a 2c response. That's certainly forcing.

Wank is referring to a bidding sequence that starts with 1♥. I stand by my post.

Why would anyone feel the need to say 3♥ after 2♣ is forcing? Even 2♥ is forcing.

If you open this hand 2♣ your standards for opening 2♣ is way below the norm.

[bluerib]

[hv=pc=n&w=sakt5h98dj7ck7432&e=s43hakt742daktca8]266|100|Dealer East, IMPs[/hv]

 

12 out of 14 pairs played 4♥ in a recent, decent club game, IMPs.

Presumably after

 

1♥ - 1♠ - 3♥ - 4♥

 

East was dealer.

Can you do better?

(Okay, it's a good hand for a strong club system)

 

I prefer the following bidding sequence, assuming SAYC system.

 

1♥ - 2♣ (10 plus points, 5-card ♣; 1♠ to 1♥ must promise 5 cards!) - 3♥ (17 plus points, 6 plus cards) - 3♠ (second suit) - 4♣ (support/cue?) - 4♠ (cue) - 5♦ (cue) - 5♠ (cue) - 6♦ (cue) - 6♥ (end).

 

There can be other bidding sequences. But, it's clear that, after the first response of 2♣, promising 10 plus points and a five-card ♣ suit, declarer can re-evaluate his hand to 21 points (18 HCPs, plus 3 distributional points: 1 for the ♠ doubleton, 2 for the long ♥ suit, making a total of more than 32 points for a small slam. Moreover, declarer's hand is so solid in terms of "controls" (8 out of 12 of the whole card deck!).

 

As far as the suits break normally (6322 for ♥ and 5332 for ♣), the slam will make.

 

As the cards lie, there can be another playing line: The ♦ suit can be ruffed out to make the slam if only the ♥ suit breaks 6322.

[P_Marlowe]

I prefer the following bidding sequence, assuming SAYC system.

 

1♥ - 2♣ (10 plus points, 5-card ♣; 1♠ to 1♥ must promise 5 cards!) - 3♥ (17 plus points, 6 plus cards) - 3♠ (second suit) - 4♣ (support/cue?) - 4♠ (cue) - 5♦ (cue) - 5♠ (cue) - 6♦ (cue) - 6♥ (end).

 

There can be other bidding sequences. But, it's clear that, after the first response of 2♣, promising 10 plus points and a five-card ♣ suit, declarer can re-evaluate his hand to 21 points (18 HCPs, plus 3 distributional points: 1 for the ♠ doubleton, 2 for the long ♥ suit, making a total of more than 32 points for a small slam. Moreover, declarer's hand is so solid in terms of "controls" (8 out of 12 of the whole card deck!).

 

As far as the suits break normally (6322 for ♥ and 5332 for ♣), the slam will make.

 

As the cards lie, there can be another playing line: The ♦ suit can be ruffed out to make the slam if only the ♥ suit breaks 6322.

#1 if you require, that a 1S response to a 1H opening showes 5+, you play Flannery?

we can talk all day, but I dont think Flannery is part of an default SAYC system (whatever this means)

#2 2C showing 5+ is certainly playable, ..., but again, what do you bid with various 44 hands (spade/ club, minors),

that dont have the strength to bid 2NT / 3NT, ... again, this is solvable using some artifical meaning of a 1NT

response, but claiming this to be SAYC?

[Dumoti]

Personally, I would not open the east hand with 2♣.

 

East has 39 ZPs or even at Goren points it's 20. I think that the 3♥ is an underbid.

West has 26 ZPs even without the Jack. This is a full opener. Even playing 2/1, I think it is worth a 2♣ response.

 

So I figure both sides are to blame.

 

The exact methods would depend on your style. Like everyone else in the room, I would have difficulty agreeing on the trump suit and getting the cue bids in. So I cannot guarantee that I would reach the slam.