[awm]

These kinds of hands tend to be tough to bid in 2/1. Basically the issue is that bidding 2♣ could easily miss a game (no I don't expect partner to raise with Kxxx x xxxx KJxx but game is quite good in spite of the wasted spade king). On the other hand, bidding 3♥ will often miss the same games, as well as occasionally going down embarrassingly in the wrong partial. Bidding 3♣ gets you to game (and usually I won't mind being in one or the other round suit game on this hand) but carries the risk of pushing you to a bad slam. I'd personally go with 3♣ and hope that I can dissuade partner from slam if the hand is misfitty (I think the hand where partner passes 2♣ and we have a game is more likely than the hand where I can't stop partner from bidding slam after the 3♣ rebid) but this will depend on various things like how often your partner takes a "false preference" with 4+♣ and 2♥, and how good a card holder your partner typically is.

Elianna and I would rebid 2NT (gazilli, showing 6♥ and 4+minor and about 14-16), which more or less solves the problem. With most of my strong club partners I would rebid 3♣ showing 6♥, 5♣, and about 12-14 high. Of course, none of this helps when you're playing straight 2/1.

[cherdano]

Echognome, on Oct 2 2006, 04:28 PM, said:

mikeh, on Oct 2 2006, 02:04 PM, said:

2♣

No other bid makes sense. I'd maybe bid 3♣ in a big club method, where the jumpshift merely shows a good non 1♣ opener, but in a standard method, anything but 2♣ seems completely misguided.

Yes, I have a good hand, but the alternatives are:

3♣: game force. Whatever partner has, he will go wrong. The better his hand, the worse our result will be, unless he has a fit. And if he has a fit, we don't need to jumpshift: he won't pass 2♣

3♥: ok on playing strength in hearts, but otherwise a complete lie. Imagine Axxxx x Axx KQxx opposite: try to find ♣ now.

2♥: giving up entirely

It is 100-1 that 2♣ will not end the auction, and I can start to show my extra playing strength later. If 2♣ does end the auction, we haven't missed game yet   KQxxx void Jxxxx xxx

I agree this makes sense, but it brings another question to my mind. I wasn't at the table, nor knew responder's hand, but I am wondering if responder should make a "courtesy raise" with any hand with 4 clubs.

For example, should responder with 3♣ with any of the following hands:

♠KJTx ♥x ♦xxxx ♣Kxxx

♠QJTxx ♥xx ♦Kx ♣QTxx

♠Axxxx ♥--- ♦xxxx ♣Kxxx

etc.

How much should responder just be thankful that he improved the contract? If 3♣ is just a "courtesy" raise, how does responder make a more constructive raise? (Of course if responder had bid 1NT, an "impossible" 2♠ can be used for that purpose.)

Except for the 3rd hand, I think you just can't afford to raise to 3♣ in standard 2/1 (with a forcing or almost forcing 1N), as partner is quite likely to have a balanced minimum hand with 3 clubs only.

When 2♣ promises 4, it's a different story, but that's usually not the case even for partnerships who play a semi-forcing 1N.

Arend

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Oct 2 2006, 08:54 PM, said:

Except for the 3rd hand, I think you just can't afford to raise to 3♣ in standard 2/1 (with a forcing or almost forcing 1N), as partner is quite likely to have a balanced minimum hand with 3 clubs only.

When 2♣ promises 4, it's a different story, but that's usually not the case even for partnerships who play a semi-forcing 1N.

Arend

Surely partner bids 1NT with a balanced minimum and 3 clubs?

[paulg]

As it came up in the BIL tonight, the question of what you open with ♠xx ♥AQxxx ♦AQx ♣Kxx is relevant to the appeal of rebidding 2♣.

Paul

[pclayton]

Walddk, on Oct 2 2006, 10:13 AM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 2 2006, 06:44 PM, said:

2♣ is a reasonable rebid, but its MP's and if pard does have the hand where he passes 2♣ you are booked for a zero. I think I like 3♥ (4 is tooo much) and pull 3N to 4♣. Isn't that a nice description?

I don't think so. We have 11 cards in two suits (6-5), so why I would give partner the impression that I have a one-suiter by rebidding hearts I can't understand. It must be better to show 9+ cards in two suits rather than 6 cards in one.

This is a two-suiter. The idea is to bid the longer suit followed by the shorter unless partner supports hearts on his first turn.

And when does partner pass 2♣? When we are unlikely to have a game on, because only with 1-3 in hearts and clubs and a very weak hand will he pass 2♣. Every time he has 2 hearts, he will give preference, and every time he has 4 clubs he will support ("courtesy" if you prefer).

Roland

Roland - I think this is a bigger risk than you make it out to be. At MPs, I'm not that worried about missing game, but I really want to play in the right partial. And it is the presence of the club fit that makes hearts a more viable spot.

Something like: Qxxx, x, xxxx, Kxxx for instance will pass 2♣ (and breathe a sigh of relief) whereby hearts is making anywhere from 140 to 200 on completely normal splits. Clubs will score 130 to 150 on those same splits.

Will you partner take a call over 2♣ with: KJxx, x, Qxxxx, Kxx? Its close and I wouldn't blame pard for passing.

At IMPs, I think 2♣ is far better.

[cherdano]

Echognome, on Oct 2 2006, 11:00 PM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 2 2006, 08:54 PM, said:

Except for the 3rd hand, I think you just can't afford to raise to 3♣ in standard 2/1 (with a forcing or almost forcing 1N), as partner is quite likely to have a balanced minimum hand with 3 clubs only.

When 2♣ promises 4, it's a different story, but that's usually not the case even for partnerships who play a semi-forcing 1N.

Arend

Surely partner bids 1NT with a balanced minimum and 3 clubs?

Uh, for some reason I thought the auction was 1H-1N-2C...

[the hog]

I'm a bit late, but 2C looks totally obvious to me. No, I certainly would not open the hand 2C f that is what you had in mind with your original question.
Phil, sorry but I don't understand your comment above. How can partner pass 2C when it is 100% forcing?

[Walddk]

The_Hog, on Oct 3 2006, 11:50 AM, said:

How can partner pass 2C when it is 100% forcing?

I don't think it's a common treatment to let 2♣ be forcing on this auction:

1♥ - 1♠
2♣

I am pretty certain that in most partnerships, a new suit by opener is limited to (17)18 hcp (else a jump rebid: 19-21 and GF). However, it will take a special hand for responder to pass 2♣. 1-3 in hearts and clubs and roughly 5-7 hcp, in which case you will rarely have missed a game.

Phil and I disagree when he says that there is a big risk involved by bidding 2♣, even at pairs. Partner will almost always bid, and if he doesn't on rare occasions, RHO may well balance.

Roland

[pclayton]

Walddk, on Oct 3 2006, 04:16 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Oct 3 2006, 11:50 AM, said:

How can partner pass 2C when it is 100% forcing?

I don't think it's a common treatment to let 2♣ be forcing on this auction:

1♥ - 1♠
2♣

I am pretty certain that in most partnerships, a new suit by opener is limited to (17)18 hcp (else a jump rebid: 19-21 and GF). However, it will take a special hand for responder to pass 2♣. 1-3 in hearts and clubs and roughly 5-7 hcp, in which case you will rarely have missed a game.

Phil and I disagree when he says that there is a big risk involved by bidding 2♣, even at pairs. Partner will almost always bid, and if he doesn't on rare occasions, RHO may well balance.

Roland

Indeed.

If 2♣ was forcing, it would be ideal.

However, if one plays a Gazilli structure or the like, 2♣ doesn't necessarily promise clubs, which isn't as appealing with the subject hand.