[Echognome]

mikeh, on Jan 13 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

what I do next depends on what he does next... it would be nice to have some agreements here... but we should be able to cue to the correct contract.. altho I suspect that virtually everyone (other than me and,maybe, Frances) would end up using keycard at some point.

I don't know if you purposefully chose words to instigate, but...

Shouldn't it depend on if someone in the partnership is able to take control? I mean we aren't because we're looking at two possible quick losers in clubs. Hopefully our partner won't envision that we have a club control, because of our 2♣ bid and subsequent action. (I'm not saying they will, but it will be more likely given our focus on clubs.) I believe if you read my post, you will see my move was to cue 4♠ and leave it up to partner and, as Gonzalo showed, there are others who do not have any plans to keycard.

By the way, I'm not saying I like my auction any better than yours the way it turned out, just saying what I feel I would do at the table.

[jdonn]

I would start with 2♣, but then when partner bids 2♥ which is game forcing why would I not just bid a simple 3♦? 2♠ instead would only serve to confuse the issue.

[mikeh]

Echognome, on Jan 13 2009, 12:13 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 13 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

what I do next depends on what he does next... it would be nice to have some agreements here... but we should be able to cue to the correct contract.. altho I suspect that virtually everyone (other than me and,maybe, Frances) would end up using keycard at some point.

I don't know if you purposefully chose words to instigate, but...

Shouldn't it depend on if someone in the partnership is able to take control? I mean we aren't because we're looking at two possible quick losers in clubs. Hopefully our partner won't envision that we have a club control, because of our 2♣ bid and subsequent action. (I'm not saying they will, but it will be more likely given our focus on clubs.) I believe if you read my post, you will see my move was to cue 4♠ and leave it up to partner and, as Gonzalo showed, there are others who do not have any plans to keycard.

By the way, I'm not saying I like my auction any better than yours the way it turned out, just saying what I feel I would do at the table.

Maybe I wasn't clear, or maybe you think that most posts are about you (a failing of which I have been accused).

As I see your posts, you didn't choose 2♣ at all. Therefore I had and have no idea how you would intend to bid had you done so. Furthermore, if you did bid 2♣ and partner then bid and rebid hearts, the auction would (if you bid as I suggested) be at the 3-level.. at 3♥... so no-one is cue-bidding 4♠.

An auction that begins with a cuebid (my second choice) obviously develops in an entirely different fashion, if only because we have, in effect, preempted our own auction.. not that such preemption is the reason I chose 2♣ instead.

I wasn't trying to antagonize anyone.. but as someone who (usually) reads the posts, I can state with complete assurance that virtually everyone uses keycard far more frequently than I think is appropriate. That doesn't make me correct in my views of whether and when keycard should be used, but it does justify my suggesting that I would likely be in a minority when I choose not to keycard in any given auction.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Jan 13 2009, 12:25 PM, said:

I would start with 2♣, but then when partner bids 2♥ which is game forcing why would I not just bid a simple 3♦? 2♠ instead would only serve to confuse the issue.

Well, to me the auction that begins with me bidding 2♣ and then bidding 3♦ suggests a somewhat different shape than 3=3=3=4.. and I'd like partner to be able to make an economical rebid, which is easier after 2♠ than it is after 3♦.

I don't see much in it, btw, and suspect that, most times, the end result will be the same.

[skjaeran]

Add me in the 2♣ wtp camp too.
Over 2♥ I give preference with 3♦.

[Echognome]

mikeh, on Jan 13 2009, 10:50 AM, said:

As I see your posts, you didn't choose 2♣ at all. Therefore I had and have no idea how you would intend to bid had you done so. Furthermore, if you did bid 2♣ and partner then bid and rebid hearts, the auction would (if you bid as I suggested) be at the 3-level.. at 3♥... so no-one is cue-bidding 4♠.

I'm not really complaining, but if I bid 2♠ and partner bid (3♥) and rebid (4♥) hearts, then the auction would be at the 4-level, which is exactly what I said in my post.

[ArtK78]

I know one thing is clear. If I bid 2♠ and partner bids hearts next, I am not bidding 3NT. And the idea of bidding 3NT over 1♠ is just awful.

I suspect I would start with 2♣ to see how the bidding develops. Playing in notrump is not going to happen unless partner suggests it.

[xcurt]

Partner had x, AKTxx, KTxxxx, x so 6♦ was good and both slams were cold and good for a nice pickup.

I bid 2♠ at the table, then

1♦-(1♠)-2S
3♥-3NT?
4♥-6♦
P

I immediately realized 3NT was stupid, 3♠ is much better in this position.

About half the responders bid 2♣ on their first turn, the rest split between 2♠, Double, and other things, most calling it "obvious" or "wtp." Does this mean that "all hands with no good call invent a club suit" (like other auctions) or do we want to suggest some length or strength in clubs to partner?

[OleBerg]

xcurt, on Jan 14 2009, 05:34 AM, said:

About half the responders bid 2♣ on their first turn, the rest split between 2♠, Double, and other things, most calling it "obvious" or "wtp."  Does this mean that "all hands with no good call invent a club suit" (like other auctions) or do we want to suggest some length or strength in clubs to partner?

I do not invent a Club suit.

I show 4+ clubs, and deny primary fit to diamonds, as clubs can still be the right denomination. Partner could be 5-4 or 5-5 in the minors, and that is easy to cater for with a 2♣ bid, that doesn't take up any space.

It is simple, natural bidding.

I would also respond 2♣ to 1♦, if LHO hadn't overcalled.

[gnasher]

xcurt, on Jan 14 2009, 04:34 AM, said:

About half the responders bid 2♣ on their first turn, the rest split between 2♠, Double, and other things, most calling it "obvious" or "wtp." Does this mean that "all hands with no good call invent a club suit" (like other auctions) or do we want to suggest some length or strength in clubs to partner?

I don't think we were all playing the same system. If 2♠ just shows a good hand without anything better to bid, it is completely obvious. If 2♠ shows four-card diamond support it's a misdescription, and IMO a greater misdescription than 2♣.