[kgr]

Scoring: IMP

---

Opps silent:
1♥-1♠
??
- -
You agreed SAYC. What is best bid now?

[whereagles]

3S. seems like par

[cjames]

ja, 3SP.

[jdonn]

Wow I HATE 3♠, 2♠ seems perfectly normal to me. I see the void, but 11 count with bad trumps? ELEVEN count! I hate to be a point counter but there must be a limit. I really don't think we usually miss game if partner passes, but I think we go down in game a lot afterr 3♠.

[P_Marlowe]

3S.

2S is ok as well, you have to decide
according to your own style, 3S is an
overbid, 2S an underbid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[CSGibson]

jdonn, on Apr 5 2008, 08:16 AM, said:

Wow I HATE 3♠, 2♠ seems perfectly normal to me. I see the void, but 11 count with bad trumps? ELEVEN count! I hate to be a point counter but there must be a limit. I really don't think we usually miss game if partner passes, but I think we go down in game a lot afterr 3♠.

Really? I think we miss games we want to be in when partner has 5 good trump and nothing else, but try getting him to bid on with KQJxx xx xx xxxx. Mind you, he might not bid on with that over 3 spades, but we have good cover cards and good controls for partner and probably should show it. I don't think 3 spades is that much of a stretch.

[jdonn]

CSGibson, on Apr 5 2008, 05:48 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 5 2008, 08:16 AM, said:

Wow I HATE 3♠, 2♠ seems perfectly normal to me. I see the void, but 11 count with bad trumps? ELEVEN count! I hate to be a point counter but there must be a limit. I really don't think we usually miss game if partner passes, but I think we go down in game a lot afterr 3♠.

Really? I think we miss games we want to be in when partner has 5 good trump and nothing else, but try getting him to bid on with KQJxx xx xx xxxx. Mind you, he might not bid on with that over 3 spades, but we have good cover cards and good controls for partner and probably should show it. I don't think 3 spades is that much of a stretch.

This is called perfecto card placing. Aside from the fact you can argue KQJxx xx xx xxxx should raise 3♠ to 4 (I bet jlall thinks it should), partner can have Qxxx xx xxx AKQx too. Examples with values crunched into one suit are not typical and a little silly.

I still believe 3 is really exuberant. If partner has four spades you could easily find yourself unable to make even with just two or three top losers.

[Cascade]

I hate 3♠ too but maybe my thoughts are coloured by normally playing a weak NT system where a raise to 2♠ always has extra distribution or extra values. Perhaps not though as we raise fairly freely on three trumps making a the effective range a little wider.

Anyway* I just bid 2♠ and accept any move perhaps even a competitive one depending on the auction.

* Translation for the contemporary youth - Anyways

[pclayton]

3♠. Not only because of the club void, but the hand has nice honor structure.

[655321]

3♠

[Cascade]

pclayton, on Apr 6 2008, 07:09 PM, said:

3♠. Not only because of the club void, but the hand has nice honor structure.

Do you mean the lack of them?

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Apr 6 2008, 02:03 AM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 6 2008, 07:09 PM, said:

3♠. Not only because of the club void, but the hand has nice honor structure.

Do you mean the lack of them?

Haha I know what it means. There is a void and terrible trumps. Obviously the honors will be keeping each other company in the other two suits

[CSGibson]

jdonn, on Apr 5 2008, 06:47 PM, said:

Examples with values crunched into one suit are not typical and a little silly.

They are less silly when 1) it's a suit that partner bid and 2) there's more room for partner to hold values in that suit than other suits. Obviously partner is likely to have clubs also, so your example is just as valid. Unfortunately, partner is likely to make a move over 2 spades with your example, so I'd probably be in the same no-play game without sophisticated gadgetry to let me know about the club wastage.

My point was more that the game has little to do with HCP and more to do with the quality of partner's trump, so it is a crapshoot either way you go. Personally I would feel sympathy for a partner who did either. I would probably bid 3 spades opposite a conservative partner and 2 spades opposite an aggressive one. I think this hand is worth 2 & 1/2 spades, and that's the best compromise I can make.

[Cascade]

If you bid 3♠ what are you expecting partner to bid 4♠ on?

What is the minimum strength with four spades?

What is the minimum strength with five spades?

[rogerclee]

2♠.

The void may not be pulling its weight if spades are 4-4 and our trumps aren't so great. Partner should be bidding very aggressively with 5+♠ anyway.

[fromageGB]

Nowhere near a 3♠. 2 is enough, and maybe there is a case for the system to mark up the profiles of those who bid 3, that I see when I join an online game, so that they say "warning - I take very optimistic views". It would be useful.

[CSGibson]

You know, thinking about this, there is very little chance that partner won't make a move over 2S. Both opps are silent, there are a crapload of clubs out there somewhere, and I only have 11 HCP, leaving 10 on average for everyone else. As the opps are silent, it's likely that partner has his share of those. So what the heck, the odds are for going low. 2♠, leaving room for our game tries. Who knows, maybe partner will make a trump suit game try, leaving us 1 down in 3 spades instead of 2 down doubled in 4 spades.

[FrancesHinden]

I can live with either. I think 2S is technically correct, but I feel those siren voices tempting me into 3...

[pclayton]

Cascade, on Apr 5 2008, 11:03 PM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 6 2008, 07:09 PM, said:

3♠. Not only because of the club void, but the hand has nice honor structure.

Do you mean the lack of them?

No. I have an AK and a side suit with KJT.

Less obvious are the weak trump that will be used to ruff clubs (instead of ruffing with honors).