[inquiry]

Playing the current methods, I would bid 3♣ then 4♠. Of course, I don't like being handycapped this way. I prefer my own methods.... (MisIry two suiters, strongish Namyats (at most 2 keycards, with 1 keycard, then hold queen of trumps, no void), Acol 2 bids in majors included within 2♣ opening bid.

So I would have opened 2♣, if partner has any possible trick for a major, he will bid 2♦, then I could bid 2♠ forcing one round. If he has ONLY one trick for a spade contract, he will bid 2NT -- now I can bid 3♣ --> forcing to game and places emphasis on the black suits. If he bids something other than 2NT, we are already GF'ed and I can explore at low level. AND REMEMBER, for me I play MISIRY so 3♣ is NEVER a five card suit on this 2♣-2♦-2♠ auction.

[Fluffy]

On my partnership 2NT is GF, and 3♣ would show at least 5-5. And I don't care because I would bid 3♣ anyway, there would be nothing better than partner raising clubs and letting me use RCKB with clubs as fit.

[the hog]

3C. This will focus on the C suit when I next bid 4S. No, this is NOT a 2C opening. (Unless you play methods such as espoused above).

[mike777]

2C, Bart I assume. Now if I can just get past this round.

[pclayton]

I bid 4♠ as well. I think this really focuses on spades and says I have great trump (vs 3♠).

Pard gives you a nudge to 5♠. What does this mean? What do we do?

[rogerclee]

pclayton, on Dec 29 2007, 12:57 AM, said:

I bid 4♠ as well. I think this really focuses on spades and says I have great trump (vs 3♠).

Pard gives you a nudge to 5♠. What does this mean? What do we do?

I'll admit that I have no idea what is going on. I like my hand, though, so I try 6S.

[Fluffy]

I agree with robert, and I think I would bid 6 anyway.

For 5♠ maybe partner has ♥A, ♦K, ♣A and spade void

Or he can have a good 3 card raise such as Q10x-AQxx-Jxx-Kxx

Slam is poor in both holdings, rethinking better I pass 5♠.

[kenrexford]

mike777, on Dec 28 2007, 09:54 PM, said:

2C, Bart I assume. Now if I can just get past this round.

Not a bad thought...

[ArtK78]

mike777, on Dec 28 2007, 09:54 PM, said:

2C, Bart I assume. Now if I can just get past this round.

BART is not designed for a hand of this type.

Besides, 2♣ is not BART. Partner's 2♦ bid over 2♣ is BART.

Why would you risk a pass of 2♣? Partner might have something like:

x xxx Qxx KJTxxx

[keylime]

3♣. This is nearly a pure hand. I follow up with a spade call.

After the raise to 5♠ I'd take a shot at slam.

[pclayton]

Fluffy, on Dec 29 2007, 02:50 AM, said:

Or he can have a good 3 card raise such as Q10x-AQxx-Jxx-Kxx

I think this hand type agrees with 3♠. Why monkey with 3♥?

[rogerclee]

pclayton, on Dec 29 2007, 01:23 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Dec 29 2007, 02:50 AM, said:

Or he can have a good 3 card raise such as Q10x-AQxx-Jxx-Kxx

I think this hand type agrees with 3♠. Why monkey with 3♥?

Not only that, I think it is much more likely that the opponents would have found a bid with 2 spades between them.

[mike777]

ArtK78, on Dec 29 2007, 12:06 PM, said:

mike777, on Dec 28 2007, 09:54 PM, said:

2C, Bart I assume. Now if I can just get past this round.

BART is not designed for a hand of this type.

Besides, 2♣ is not BART. Partner's 2♦ bid over 2♣ is BART.

Why would you risk a pass of 2♣? Partner might have something like:

x xxx Qxx KJTxxx

If playing full Bart that is a clear 3club raise....partner does not need to bid 2d for BART kick in. I am trying to say BART affects the non 2d responses here.

My goal, if I can just get past this round, is to show lots of playing tricks based on shape not on hcp.

I understand many forum posts seem to not try and differentiate between playing tricks based on shape compared to hcp. That is why so many say..."this is not about hcp" when I think it is


My goal is to at least try and show a hand that has:
1) lots of shape
2) lots of spades
3) too good to open 2s or 3s or 4s
4) Not good enough to open 2c
5) Less than 18/19 hcp.
6) interest in slam.

If I can just get past this round.

[Fluffy]

pclayton, on Dec 29 2007, 06:23 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Dec 29 2007, 02:50 AM, said:

Or he can have a good 3 card raise such as Q10x-AQxx-Jxx-Kxx

I think this hand type agrees with 3♠. Why monkey with 3♥?

I missed one of your posts and though the bidding was 1♠-1NT-4♠-5♠

[CSGibson]

I think 5 spades is inviting you to bid 6 with no diamond losers. Partner should have something like x AJTxxx xxx Kxx. At least I'm placing him on a singleton spade for the bidding, he might have more or less in clubs for all I know, but he has the king of clubs and no help in diamonds for sure. I'll bite, he might have the jack of clubs after all.

[jdeegan]

4♠, maybe, at matchpoints. It's a thought, anyway. Opponents might blow a trick in the defense given no info on my shape, and missing a slam is less important than in other forms of bridge.

[pclayton]

I bid 6♠ as well. Pard put down: ♠Tx ♥KQTxx ♦Jxx ♣Axx.

While the contract has some very slim chances, 6♠ is awful. On the actual layout, 10 tricks are the limit. Clubs are wedged behind you and trumps were 3-0 onside.

What do you think of pard's bidding?

[cherdano]

In my opinion, bidding 5S with one known working card is a clear-cut mistake. (I think all our decisions were pretty clearcut as well.)

[mike777]

pclayton, on Dec 31 2007, 02:17 AM, said:

I bid 6♠ as well. Pard put down: ♠Tx ♥KQTxx ♦Jxx ♣Axx.

While the contract has some very slim chances, 6♠ is awful. On the actual layout, 10 tricks are the limit. Clubs are wedged behind you and trumps were 3-0 onside.

What do you think of pard's bidding?

prefer my 2clubs over 3clubs.