[beatrix45]

Scoring: IMP

1♣-P-1♦-P
1♠-P-???

---

What is your bid, and what is your plan on this hand? Do you think there is any possibility for slam?? If so, how to explore it? We are facing quality opponents.

[han]

let's start with 2H, forcing to game. Bit early for a gameplan.

[neilkaz]

Hannie, on Nov 3 2007, 11:27 PM, said:

let's start with 2H, forcing to game. Bit early for a gameplan.

Agree 100%. If opener has the wrong min, there is no slam and on a real bad day, the 5 level is at risk. Much better to slow down the auction and preserve bidding room.

.. neilkaz ..

[jdonn]

I would give every bid other than 2♥ a 0.

[andy_h]

2H

[skjaeran]

Playing standard methods with no special gadgets this is an obvious 2♥. 4th suit GF. Need more information from partner to evaluate slam prospects. Will support ♠s next.

[cjames]

2♥

[helene_t]

No alternative to 2♥, especially since there's no 5 1/2 ♠ bidding card available.

[skjaeran]

helene_t, on Nov 4 2007, 11:16 AM, said:

No alternative to 2♥, especially since there's no 5 1/2 ♠ bidding card available.

Hehe, even if 5.5♠ was available it would be an overbid IMO.

[P_Marlowe]

beatrix45, on Nov 3 2007, 11:18 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♣-P-1♦-P
1♠-P-???

---

What is your bid, and what is your plan on this hand? Do you think there is any possibility for slam?? If so, how to explore it? We are facing quality opponents.

2H, setting up a frocing auction with spade
agreed as trumps.

We will find out if slam is possible.

Opponents have nothing to do with this, only
if partner indicates a min. opener I would give
up, but this is an idea also indepent from the
quality of the opponnets, but if you dont follow it
and play against good opponents they may be able
to use the information you handed out for free.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenrexford]

2♥ is the obvious start. The sole "down the road" issue is a concern about Kx in hearts. I hope that partner does not bid 2NT as his next call, as I may need to right-side 6NT.

[pclayton]

2♥ looks obvious under the given constraints. Raising spades afterward shows a hand that may be interested in slam.

Without solid agreements, I'm curious how others think that we will be able to avoid a bad slam and get to a slam with minimum values. There will have been a minimum of information exchanged up to 3♠, and is it so clear for opener to cue bid over 3♠ with a vanilla 14 count?

It also helps to know if 1♠ promises an unbalanced hand.

Playing xyz, this looks like a direct 3♠ call and some sort of serious / non-serious cue could help us evaluate.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Nov 4 2007, 01:02 PM, said:

Playing xyz, this looks like a direct 3♠ call and some sort of serious / non-serious cue could help us evaluate.

Isn't 2♥ then 3♠ even better? You can still have your serious 3NT or similar if you want, but you get an extra descriptive bid from partner along the way to judge his shape better, as well as making his later cuebids more descriptive.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Nov 4 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

If partner bids 2N over 2H then your king of hearts doesnt need to be protected.

Good point. LOL

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Nov 4 2007, 10:11 AM, said:

pclayton, on Nov 4 2007, 01:02 PM, said:

Playing xyz, this looks like a direct 3♠ call and some sort of serious / non-serious cue could help us evaluate.

Isn't 2♥ then 3♠ even better? You can still have your serious 3NT or similar if you want, but you get an extra descriptive bid from partner along the way to judge his shape better, as well as making his later cuebids more descriptive.

Is there another strain you would consider other than spades? While you can ferret out some more information on the way to raising spades, we play that a delayed raise of spades shows doubt about strain (looking for a moysian).

I've gone back and forth on these sequences with two partnerships, and I think its superior to play it this way. Its just about impossible to look for a 4-3 fit otherwise.

[kenrexford]

This Responder's hand offers a good argument for two approaches.

One is Walsh. Responder simply bids 1♠ and Opener presumable raises to 2♠. I'm sure that this is a better start for these hands.

The second is my preference, modified Golady. Responder bids 2♣ as his first call (either GF without a five-card major or limit+ with clubs). Opener rebids 2♥ (4 spades, not 4 hearts). Responder bids 2♠, setting trumps and GF.

[Winstonm]

pclayton, on Nov 4 2007, 01:02 PM, said:

2♥ looks obvious under the given constraints. Raising spades afterward shows a hand that may be interested in slam.

Without solid agreements, I'm curious how others think that we will be able to avoid a bad slam and get to a slam with minimum values. There will have been a minimum of information exchanged up to 3♠, and is it so clear for opener to cue bid over 3♠ with a vanilla 14 count?

It also helps to know if 1♠ promises an unbalanced hand.

Playing xyz, this looks like a direct 3♠ call and some sort of serious / non-serious cue could help us evaluate.

Two things here - although I know many are adamantly opposed to the idea, I still like a Walsh sequence of 2S here to be a game force; however, adding xyz to Walsh obviates the need to use 2S as forcing, so now I prefer that approach.

[Walddk]

jdonn, on Nov 4 2007, 07:43 AM, said:

I would give every bid other than 2♥ a 0.

I can beat that. I will give it -10.

Roland