[CSGibson]

Scoring: MP

---

You have the hand above, and the bidding goes Pass - Pass - Pass - 2♠ by partner, pass to you.

2♠ should be a full opener with 6+ good spades and no second suit.

How do you rate:

3♣
3♠
4♠

as options? Any other reasonable choices I'm missing?

And yes, I know that MP is not bridge, but that's the scoring in use for this hand.

[Free]

If 3♣ shows fit, I'll bid it. Otherwise just blast to 4♠...

[zasanya]

3♠ seems good enough at any form of bridge.

[mike777]

insane..anything less than4s


insane

[1eyedjack]

I can construct a perfect hand where 6S makes, but put me in the 4S camp.
If 4C is fit showing, that might be right. It doesn't seem likely that two passing opponents will compete to 5 of a red suit, but I have known it to happen. Direct 4S may render it less likely. Via 4C may render it more likely but also would assist partner in any 5 level decision.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would invite, so 3S or 2NT.

For me, 2S shows only a min. or a max. weak 2,
so I move, but with caution.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

4♠ wtp.

[CSGibson]

Free, on Sep 4 2007, 02:50 AM, said:

If 3♣ shows fit, I'll bid it. Otherwise just blast to 4♠...

3♣ has to show a fit with club values; why else would you move off of 2♠ when you didn't have enough to preempt in the first place?

4♣ sounds like a splinter to me; any reason to play it as anything else?

The reason I posted the problem is that I chose a "safe" 3♣ at the table. The opponents got into the auction and found a cheap 5 level red suit save, like another poster foresaw. In retrospect, I think 4♠ may have been right, but wanted to check to see what others thought to see if I might just have been ridden hard by table luck.

[kenrexford]

Let's see. To have slam, you need partner to have two side Aces (8 HCP), plus one side King (11 HCP), plus the spade King (14 HCP), at a minimum. Something like ♠Kxxxxx ♥Kx ♦Ax ♣Axx. That requires spades 2-1 and the club finesse working, which is anti-percentage. So, it seems that partner needs the golden hand of ♠Kxxxxx ♥Kx ♦Ax ♣AQx, a 16-count. However, partner is supposed to have "good spades," which I assume to mean KQxxxx as a contextual minimum. Now I need an 18-count. I cannot imagine that this makes sense. So, what about ♠KQxxxx ♥Kx ♦Ax ♣Ax? That seems rich as well.

So, why make a club fit-showing bid? S&G's?

In contrast, maybe the fit-bid is to make sure we have a game. If partner has ♠KQxxxx ♥QJx ♦Qx ♣AQ, game does not make. Will partner know to decline because he has great clubs, and a maximum, but nothing else in the way of quicks?

In thinking this thing out, it seems that 3-bids would better be used as shortness bids, IMO. That does not help here, but it would seem like a better treatment int he long run.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Sep 4 2007, 05:03 PM, said:

In thinking this thing out, it seems that 3-bids would better be used as shortness bids, IMO. That does not help here, but it would seem like a better treatment in the long run.

Its a LOT easier to double a shortness showing bid (there by suggesting length)than introducing a new suit at the three level.

I think that there are two valid choices here:

1. Bid 3♣ as a fit non jump. The fit non jump will work out better if it permits the 2♠ opener in judging whether to compete at the 5 level

2. Bid 4♠ and try to shut down the opponents ASAP. (The 4♠ bid also stops the opponents from doing something annoying like bidding 4NT asking partner to express preference etween the red suits)

I'd feel a lot better about making a fit non jump if I didn't have the club suit.

Mark me down for a 4♠ bid, but I consider this a reasonably close decision.

[kenrexford]

hrothgar, on Sep 4 2007, 09:10 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Sep 4 2007, 05:03 PM, said:

In thinking this thing out, it seems that 3-bids would better be used as shortness bids, IMO.  That does not help here, but it would seem like a better treatment in the long run.

Its a LOT easier to double a shortness showing bid (there by suggesting length)than introducing a new suit at the three level.

If that's the concern, submarine the thing.

[Free]

CSGibson, on Sep 4 2007, 02:47 PM, said:

Free, on Sep 4 2007, 02:50 AM, said:

If 3♣ shows fit, I'll bid it.  Otherwise just blast to 4♠...

3♣ has to show a fit with club values; why else would you move off of 2♠ when you didn't have enough to preempt in the first place?

Since 2♠ is a full opener, not preemptive, it's not that clearcut imo. Can't you still have a constructive hand, say 10-11hcp with a decent 5 card ♣, sort of looking for 3NT?

[cherdano]

What is this talk about slam??? Partner is showing a good 6-card suit and a minimum or subminimum opener. Some play it as roughly 10-12, others 12-13, but I have never heard of 15-counts being opened 2M in 4th seat.

Here are some typical hands (IMO):
♠KQxxxx ♥AQx xx xx.
♠KJT9xx ♥xxx ♦AKx ♣x
♠KQTxxx ♥Ax ♦Kxx ♣xx (this is a maximum)

I don't know whether we can make 4S, but I also don't know whether we can their 4-level contract. I would bid 3S which should be mildly invitational, or a direct 4S, but wouldn't make any bid that lets them get in easily.