[ArtK78]

Scoring: XIMP

2♦* - ?

* Weak 2

---

[kfay]

3♠ wtp?

[benlessard]

3S , for me X and 2S doesnt show that type of hand. Give partner the K of clubs and nothing else and you want to be in 4S.

[Gerben42]

And partner is going to bid 4♠ with the ♣K? Errr...

4♠ directly.

[whereagles]

4♠ wtp?

[FrancesHinden]

3S shows a very good hand, and that's what I've got.

[jdonn]

Easy 4♠, 3♠ is trying to hard to be precisely accurate instead of just practical IMO.

[pclayton]

4♠. I'd bid 3♠ with 6 spades and the same strength.

[skjaeran]

I bid a practical 4♠.

[mikeh]

I choose 3♠: good hand, good suit, uni-directional, altho I'll pass 3N as 9 tricks should be easier than 10 on that sequence.

My objection to 4♠ is that I think it shows, or at least includes, lesser hand-types:

KQJ10xxxx Ax x xx is a 4♠ bid to me.. and our hand is more slam suitable that that. 3♠ is not forcing, but it is highly unlikely to be passed when game is on: certainly he is raising with 3 trump and a non-diamond K.

[Apollo81]

I like Mike's answer.

re Phil, I think AKJxxx is too weak a suit for this 3♠ bid, AKJxxx Qx x AQx (add a 13th card in a round suit) looks like a double and pull to me.

[han]

What do people bid with KQJx KQJxxxx x x?

To me 4S shows a better hand than 3S btw, I'd bid 4 with the hand in the OPs post. Well actually, I don't know, I think it is close.

[cherdano]

I would bid 3S.

[mikeh]

han, on Mar 11 2008, 02:34 PM, said:

What do people bid with KQJx KQJxxxx x x?

To me 4S shows a better hand than 3S btw, I'd bid 4 with the hand in the OPs post. Well actually, I don't know, I think it is close.

Two issues

The 1st: with KQJx KQJxxxx x x, I'd bid a quiet 2♥.... yes, I may miss game, but the odds seem to favour this action, and any higher call seems to risk overstating the high card power. The only other option, to me, seems to be 4♥, and that might be the practical call.... unless partner is Axxxx x Axx Axxx and hearts are 4-1

The second: if we use 4♠ as better than 3♠, it seems to me that we have too many ways to bid powerhouses and not enough to bid my example hand of KQJ10xxxx Ax x xx or its ilk. That is a hand that is (I think) quite different than Han's hand, so I wouldn't be at all comfortable bidding a quiet 2♠.

As it is, we have:

2♠: a normal overcall, usually 5+ decent suit, roughly opening values

x then cheapest number of spades: a good hand, often but not always a 6+ suit, with significant extra high cards and some degree of flexibility.. we are not committed to spades.

3♠: good hand, very good/long suit... at least 6 very good spades and significant extra values.. equivalent in playing strength to double then spades, but less flexible... we are not expecting to play in any other suit... should responder insist, it must be without expectation of support.

x then jump in spades: an extraordinary hand with long strong spades, lots of extras and some degree of flexibility: certainly has game in own hand (which doesn't mean quite the same as having 10 top tricks)

And we haven't discussed double then cue then spades

In the interim, we have nowhere to put the semi-premptive 4♠ call. While that is low-frequency, it does exist and it probably arises almost as much as the hand 'too good' to bid a power 4♠...

BTW, even if we played the power 4♠, this hand isn't it, for me. It is a run-of-the-mill 3♠: let me ask those who disagree to provide us with a minimum and a maximum 3♠ bid in their style.

[mikestar]

I'm feeling good about 3♠: for game to be good odds, I need ♣K and ♠Q or ♠xxx. A heart card might be a fair substitute for the trump holding.

I wouldn't expect partner to raise with the ♣K alone, but I would expect him to do so with ♣K and good trumps.

[the hog]

Just bid the game. 4S

[Cascade]

This is close between 3♠ and 4♠.

We need two tricks from partner. One of these might come from just a spade fit with the queen coming down. Another might come from a working club finesse. On other hands we might need two real tricks.

I tend to be an optimist with this sort of hand. So 4♠ for me.