[Hanoi5]

---

It goes:

Pd You
1♠ 1NT
2♦ ???

[blackshoe]

2♠

[jdonn]

I vote a slightly heavy 3♣, at which is at least the only contract I'm pretty confident will make if partner is minimum.

[whereagles]

Roger that. Let me just add the lack of controls might sink 3NT and that advises taking the cautious route..

[Hanoi5]

What if partner's 2♦ promises at least 4?

[Free]

3♣, my hand is probably worth most in ♣...

[ArcLight]

According to the Mike Lawrence version of 2/1 the bid to make is not 1NT but 3♣ and invitational jump shift showing this hand. (This assumes you are not using Bergen raises).


In Mikes version of 2/1 if you bid 3♣ now pard will assume you are weak and pass. Bidding 2NT shows 11-12 or a great 10. Maybe you have a great 10 because of the club length and quality. And you have the heart stopper.


We have misbid, so are stuck, I will guess to bid 2NT

[Rossoneri]

I say 3♣ as well.

[Sadie3]

Most of the time, my 2/1 pards will bid 2C, so the 2D bid is warning me against bidding 3C. I think there is a good chance to make 2 or even 3S and I opt for the 2S minimum bid. In IMPs, I might bid 3C, but I doubt it.

[effervesce]

If partner does not have the club A (or has stiff club A) 3NT won't make. There are hands that 3NT will make, eg Axxxx xx Axxx Ax, but I think it's odds-against. I bid 3♣.

[rogerclee]

I would bid 3♣ at IMPs and 2♠ at matchpoints.

Edit: Han berated me until I admitted I was wrong. 3♣ always now.

[jdonn]

I agree with han.

[whereagles]

Hanoi5, on Nov 21 2008, 06:01 PM, said:

What if partner's 2♦ promises at least 4?

So what?

[benlessard]

2Nt. but at MP ill bid 2S.

3C will probably be a better contract then 2Nt because partner is likely to be 5341 but still i prefer to make at least a foward move toward game.

Tough hand well worth a simulation.

[han]

I didn't berate Roger, I showed him my simulation results. With the simple constraints I used 3C was better than 2S at MPs about half the time, and equal and worse each one quarter of the time.

[neilkaz]

I hate a 2♠ call here with two small since 3♣ seems to be a lot better partial with that suit that can play opposite a void.

I am torn between 3♣ which even though you call it a s/off may get us to 3NT if PD has a max, and 2NT which may get us to 3NT or may get hurt if opener can not use my ♣.

At MP I'd bid 3♣ and at imps I have no real preference between 3♣ and 2NT but would opt for 3♣.

[mikestar]

3♣ is clear cut to me. It will be the best partial more often than not and will get us to 3NT when it is right more often than 2NT: partner will bid it with extras and a club fit, but will pass with a stiff club even when very strong.

[skjaeran]

3♣ seems blindingly obvious to me. We might miss a game on occasion but rate to find the superior partscore. Still might get to game after 3♣ on some hands.

[mikeh]

skaeran, on Nov 23 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

3♣ seems blindingly obvious to me. We might miss a game on occasion but rate to find the superior partscore. Still might get to game after 3♣ on some hands.

I agree that 3♣ is obvious, but I think you are dreaming if you think that we are going to reach many games after this... I think he'll need to be 5=1=4=3 for this to happen... usually, we'll be a lot weaker than this maximum... in std bidding (including 2/1) we'd bid 3♣ on x xxx xxx KQJxxx

[BobElliott]

I would bid 3!c the first time (ALL jumps are Inv'l.)....IMO BERGEN RAISES ARE

OVERRATED