[pclayton]

2♦ isn't horrible, but its a style issue. Other than the two bullets which some consider a big flaw and others don't, we are well within tolerance. Personally, I wouldn't open this 2♦, but if my suit was a major, I would upgrade this to a 9-13 2M opener that I play with Gnome.

What does a 4♠ call look like? Obviously he has a slew of spades, but what else? I see a few possibilities:

1. AQJxxxxx Kx xx x. I'd call this a 'classic' 4♠ call. Lots of spades, not much in the way of honors.

2. AKJxxxx, AQx xx x. This is more of a power 4♠ call. One less spade, but a compensating card.

3. KQJxxx, Ax, Kxx, xx. The diamond fit makes up for the lack of strength.

DO I want to be in 6♠ opposite any of these hands? Not #1, but improve it a little and 6♠ is good. #2 is quite good, but this is about as good a hand as I would ever expect. #3. We need luck on the lead, and in diamonds, but the five level is in jeopardy.

I don't think its impossible for a weak two bidder to take a call in this auction. It's possible to improve this hand and still for it to be a weak 2. I do believe that 5x should be a cue bid (even 5♦!). 4N could be blackwood, but it should probably be a generic slam try.

[OleBerg]

FrancesHinden, on May 23 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 23 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

Maybe pass is right, I don't know, but my point is this is an impossible situation because we have a better hand for slam opposite self-sufficient spades than a 2♦ opener can possibly have.

Yes, this is a circular discussion.

If I can have this hand for a 2D opening, then partner knows that and could have investigated further.

If I can't have this hand, then I didn't open 2D in the first place.

I do not agree.

In many situations, you never play partner for the perfect hand, as he never has it.

But this time we might actually have "The perfect hand" for partner. So it isn't unreasonable to let him know.

If partner always went out of his way to investigate slam, at the slightest excuse, we would end up accepting way to many of his invites.

For example:

If partner invited slam in spades, and we had:

♠ xx
♥ xx
♦ Axxxxx
♣ KQx

We would obviously accept everytime, and thus get to high, all the times partner needed the actual hand.

All this depends on how strict your requirements for weak twos are. If you play them constructively, the situation might be as "impossible" as described. But if your style is to open weak twos at any opportunity, you have to move on.


On another note, this probably isn't a much discussed sequence in many partnerships, but as Ben pointed out, we should have a way of showing shortness, as it is impossible to imagine an advancing hand without shortness.

[keylime]

Bidding with this hand, it frankly, beyond nuts. Tell me how pard is going to generate ten tricks from their hand in a slam, when they could have bid a calm and forcing 2♠ to start. And do I really want to be at the 5 level and hang pard for having a hand that can only play in spades? What if pard has something like a 7420 with a void in diamonds, and like AQJxxxx Kx --- Kxxx? Yuck.

I'm passing, saying good luck pard, and banking my 450/650.

[jdonn]

keylime, on May 23 2008, 01:19 PM, said:

Tell me how pard is going to generate ten tricks from their hand in a slam, when they could have bid a calm and forcing 2♠ to start.

So heart ruffs in the short trump hand are worth 0 tricks each?

I don't get it, I said I bid blackwood. What are all these examples of awful slams missing 2 keycards? They aren't 4♠ bids anyway, do you think if you bid 2♠ then 3♠ on that example you will miss game?

[awm]

I like bidding on this hand. It seems that we will often produce 4 tricks on offense (two aces and two heart ruffs). When partner bid 4♠, he wasn't expecting nearly so much -- probably he is only relying on us for a couple of tricks. Even a really good weak two will rarely take more than three tricks in a spade contract. So how many tricks does partner have when he bids 4♠? It seems like if he has less than seven tricks, we will almost never make 4♠ and quite frequently go two down. Certainly it's possible he bid 4♠ "as a sacrifice" but with both opponents having passed this seems against the odds. On the other hand, it's not that unusual for a weak two to provide two-three tricks and if three tricks made slam partner probably would be going slower. So I'd expect partner to have seven-eight tricks. Combined with my four this makes the five-level pretty safe and the six-level a possibility.

Looking at Phil's three examples, on two of them he gave declarer doubleton heart. Given my suit lengths, I think it is fairly likely that partner has three hearts. Either of these two hands make 5♠ virtually cold and gives 6♠ some chances if we move one of the small cards in a minor to hearts. And slam is quite good on Phil's other hand.

[CSGibson]

If you have decided to move on this hand, how would you do so? I heard a cry for blackwood, but I would expect that to be a losing proposition (as was opening 2 diamonds goes the retort. Fair point): we don't have an asking hand, we have a telling hand, since partner can have so much variance in his bids, and we're more clearly defined.

I see two ways of moving forward that I like: 5 clubs or 5 spades. 5 clubs is obviously a cue-bid, [edit] probably classic first round control, though as pointed out later it can also have different meanings if agreed. I am more interested in how people would interpret 5 spades, though. I have read that in an auction like this without a lot of room to cue-bid, that a bid of 5 of the trump suit should show controls in all of the other suits. If that is universally accepted, then I like a 5 spade bid now. My mind is far from made up, though, so I'd be interested in what others think.

[neilkaz]

Pass wondering why I opened this hand with two bullets (ie defence so the opps may make nothing or more likely PD makes a bad sac) and a mediocre (ie risk of getting hammered in 2♦x) with a weak 2 in second set vul

If I go on and I'm close with two aces and a stiff and 3 card support, I Q bid 5♣ which has to show an ace at this level since if I have a void I have a 4360 had and obviously too much support for a major to open 2♦

[han]

CSGibson, on May 23 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

If you have decided to move on this hand, how would you do so? I heard a cry for blackwood, but I would expect that to be a losing proposition (as was opening 2 diamonds goes the retort. Fair point): we don't have an asking hand, we have a telling hand, since partner can have so much variance in his bids, and we're more clearly defined.

I see two ways of moving forward that I like: 5 clubs or 5 spades. 5 clubs is obviously a cue-bid, classic first round control. I am more interested in how people would interpret 5 spades, though. I have read that in an auction like this without a lot of room to cue-bid, that a bid of 5 of the trump suit should show controls in all of the other suits. If that is universally accepted, then I like a 5 spade bid now. My mind is far from made up, though, so I'd be interested in what others think.

I don't agree that 5C is obviously a first round control. Only with shortness could you even contemplate moving on, and shortness is also the most useful feature for partner to know. I would play that 5C shows heart shortness and 5H shows club shortness. I expect Arend would interpret it as such undiscussed.

[kenrexford]

This is such a stupid discussion. But, I'll bite.

I was distracted and opened this 2♦ for some reason. How it is back at me. What do I do?

No call will describe this hand, because I cannot have this hand. So, I must either blast 6♠ or hope partner understands 4NT.

The problem is that a new suit call must show a void, IMO. For example, 5♣ would seem to show something like ♠xxxx ♥xxx ♦AKxxxx ♣--. Weird, but plausible.

4NT? I'd be concerned that this was a space-saving bid with a void in hearts. Not sure what the heck it really should in principle show.

All that said, I bet any partner, even of mine, even knowing how sick I am, would just answer damned RKCB and show all Aces, even in a suit I might have as a void. So, 4NT seems to be the right call.

So, I agree with jdonn. But, I had to scurry about first.