[Echognome]

I wanted to add that had I been playing this hand with any of the precision systems I play (the main difference being that 2♣ promises 6+ clubs), I would be playing in 2♣.

I think this is important at IMPs, that we gear our bidding to be to find games as accurately as possible and have good accurate slam bidding, while sacrificing somewhat on partscores, by just finding a playable partscore.

So that would mean responder would be passing 2♣.

I actually play that all bids over 2♣ show invitational or better values. I have ways to show invites with a 4 or 5 card major or to relay out opener's exact shape for slam purposes (barring real freak distributions).

If I were playing MPs, I would want more accuracy on finding the best partscore and game, and worry less on slam auctions.

You pick your poison I guess.

[jtfanclub]

Rob F, on Jun 25 2007, 03:23 PM, said:

Let's assume that pulling the NF 2♥ bid shows a void (since 2♥ often has 6 and would be passed in most cases with a singleton unless opener had a huge pile of clubs to fall back on).

Interesting. I would pass with 4-1-3-5, and possibly 3-1-3-6, but not any other hand with a singleton (I wouldn't open 2♣ with 2-1-4-6). I may want to rethink this. I do think the 2 spade rebid promises 6 clubs.

Quote

since responder has denied inv values by not bidding 2♦ initially, this probably doesn't want to be natural

I dunno. I play 2♣-2♦-anything-3♥ as game forcing, so with invitational values and 5 hearts you bid 2♥. I can certainly picture hands where 2NT would be the right place to play it, though it might be more valuable as something forcing.

[jdonn]

Echognome, on Jun 25 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

I wanted to add that had I been playing this hand with any of the precision systems I play (the main difference being that 2♣ promises 6+ clubs), I would be playing in 2♣.

I think this is important at IMPs, that we gear our bidding to be to find games as accurately as possible and have good accurate slam bidding, while sacrificing somewhat on partscores

That looks to me like a very good argument for NOT passing 2♣ as responder.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Jun 25 2007, 03:52 PM, said:

Echognome, on Jun 25 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

I wanted to add that had I been playing this hand with any of the precision systems I play (the main difference being that 2♣ promises 6+ clubs), I would be playing in 2♣.

I think this is important at IMPs, that we gear our bidding to be to find games as accurately as possible and have good accurate slam bidding, while sacrificing somewhat on partscores

That looks to me like a very good argument for NOT passing 2♣ as responder.

100% agree, we may well have game if we have a major suit fit.

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Jun 25 2007, 02:13 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 25 2007, 03:52 PM, said:

Echognome, on Jun 25 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

I wanted to add that had I been playing this hand with any of the precision systems I play (the main difference being that 2♣ promises 6+ clubs), I would be playing in 2♣.

I think this is important at IMPs, that we gear our bidding to be to find games as accurately as possible and have good accurate slam bidding, while sacrificing somewhat on partscores

That looks to me like a very good argument for NOT passing 2♣ as responder.

100% agree, we may well have game if we have a major suit fit.

Arend and Josh - Your judgment may vary, but I do not find this to be an invitational bid when holding a stiff club. Switch my minors and it's a different story.

[Echognome]

Jlall, on Jun 25 2007, 02:27 PM, said:

Matt, the problem is if partner has a fit you could easily have a game (with not too many HCP). You may get yourself to 2H or 3C when 2C is a better spot, but your argument of gearing your bidding towards game and not partscore would suggest you would want to try to find the major suit game and risk getting to 2H or 3C.

I agree. It's just a matter of degree. To me J9xx AKJxx Txx x is not worth making that try. For every hand where we will get to a making game, there will be plenty of other hands where we will get too high, or we will bid game that isn't making. I just view this hand too weak to make game likely enough. This is all down to what you have as standards for opening, etc. I'm just stating my experience with these hands. As I said, give me J9xx AKJxx x Txx and it's an easy game try (with the added comfort of happily playing in a club partial). Or give me KT9x AKJxx xxx x and I feel a lot better about inviting. If you guys think this is an invite, I'm sure we can make a few slight adjustments to where you will not. e.g. Q9xx KQJxx Txx x are you still inviting game? If so we can adjust again, etc. To me, the original hand falls below the line.

[Free]

Don't forget you still have opponents. On some hands they really help you by intervening your 2♣ opening North doesn't hold a good hand, but give him a ♥ more and a ♣ less and he'll certainly Double when the auction goes 2♣-p-p-... to him.

[Antoine Fourrière]

A Polish 2♣ opening has a closer range than in Precision, say an average 11 to 14 with five clubs and a four-card major, or a good 10 to an ugly 14 with six clubs. Thus invitations aren't absolutely necessary (although some rebids by responder are more (2N over 2♥, 3M) or less (3♣) invitational), and you can even bid 2♦ with something like Q9xx KQJxx Txx x and no intention to invite (provided you scrap the 3♦ response showing a maximum with six clubs and four diamonds).
Over a 2♥ response, 2♠ should be scrambling with a singleton, not completely unlike a 2♠ rebid after 1♠ 1N 2m 2♥), and opener won't scramble with KQxx xx Kx Axxxx.
So I think West should have bid 2♦ and raised 2♠ to 3♠.