[MarkDean]

Scoring: IMP

---

Partner deals, opps silent:
1♦-1♠
2♣-?

[whereagles]

3♣. If pard can bid 3♠ on the way up, we'd have found a close 4♠.

[Hanoi5]

3♠, how on earth will partner know we have 6♠'s?

[Free]

3♣, lets see what partner has to say to that.

[rogerclee]

3♣, I suspect there are more hands now where we are making 5♣ than 4♠ (where we can't get to 4♠ after starting with 3♣).

[gnasher]

2♠. I usually play this as constructive to invitational, with 3♠ being forcing. Even playing 3♠ as invitational, it's an overbid with this hand.

With no high cards at all in the minors, 5♣ looks a long way off, so unless partner takes further action I'm happy to lose the club fit.

[andy_h]

2S too, whether this would be construed as constructive or not. Agree that 3S seems like an overbid if that is the invitational bid.
I just feel 2S is a much safer level and very likely to make if 3C is also making, but if partner has a weaker hand I would prefer to be in 2S (my good spade intermediates really help). If he still moves on after 2S, I can revert back to clubs if necessary.

[skjaeran]

2♠, constructive.

[OleBerg]

2♠ hoping it is constructive, but I bid it either way.

[jdonn]

2♠, surprised at the 3♣ bids.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Mar 15 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

2♠, surprised at the 3♣ bids.

That's funny.. I was pretty sure you were going to bid 3♣

[Phil]

2♠ and then clubs over a 2N rebid.

[jdonn]

Phil, on Mar 16 2009, 11:55 AM, said:

2♠ and then clubs over a 2N rebid.

4♣ I would think.

[Phil]

jdonn, on Mar 16 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

Phil, on Mar 16 2009, 11:55 AM, said:

2♠ and then clubs over a 2N rebid.

4♣ I would think.

Definitely, since our ♥Q isn't garbage with pard's 2N rebid.

(overused Gerber joke deleted).

[Apollo81]

I'll hog the hand and bid 2♠. Last time I checked they still paid more for the major suit contracts.

[keylime]

At MPs, 2♠. At IMPs tho, 3♣. If pard has extras I can offer choice of games at 4♠.

[mikeh]

Another example of how we get a change in consensus after a good player posts a detailed explanation of his bid (not that I am saying that everyone who voted for 2♠ wouldn't have done so before gnasher's post... after all, my immediate reaction was to bid 2♠ for reasons that are almost verbatim with his).

For those who think we can get back to spades after 3♣, why? When would partner think to bid 3♠ on say Jx Kx Axxxx AQxx? This is a hand that can and should raise a constructive 2♠ bid to 3♠. Yet opposite a potentially 4 card spade suit, and no heart card, how can this hand bid 3♠?

We need a LOT to make an 11 trick game in clubs, given the robustness of our club suit, our lack of a diamond filler, and our soft heart holding, and we will usually be able to reach clubs later when he can handle this dummy. However, I disagree with the notion of 4♣ over a 2N rebid.

I think it close between 3N, 3♣ and 4♣, but 9 tricks may be easier than 11, given that I would expect us to be on a 4-4 trump fit and my trump are poor.

white, I'd opt for the conservative, but still value showing 3♣... I'd expect partner to work out that I hold 6 decent spades and 4 poor clubs (what else could I have?) but the heart Q is too good a card for notrump to overlook it.

I'd opt for 3N, expecting it to be a slight favourite over 5♣.. which he might not bid anyway if I merely invite. BTW, this type of hand shows why double dummy analysis is likely to be misleading... my guess would be that a there will be many hands on which a diamond lead is best for the defence, yet would rarely be led.

[MarkDean]

So, a constructive 2♠ was not available, otherwise I would have gladly bid it. To me, some of the temptation of 3♣ is that I do want to take a stronger call then 2♠, but perhaps not as high/inviational as 3♠.

At the table, I bid 3♠, due to my pretty good intermediates and my increased hope for club help. Partner bid 4♠ with x Axx AKQxx Jxxx, which was not a good contract. My counterpart at the other table bid 3♣.

[hanp]

Quote

So, a constructive 2♠ was not available, otherwise I would have gladly bid it. To me, some of the temptation of 3♣ is that I do want to take a stronger call than 2♠, but perhaps not as high/inviational as 3♠. [typo corrected]

I don't have a constructive 2S call availble either. An invitational 1D - 2S would be an option (and a lot more attractive than 1S followed by 3S) but it is a stretch. I don't think that your reasoning for 3C is bad, I would never expect my partner to raise (the non-constructive) 1D - 1S - 2C - 2S with the Jx Kx AQxxx Axxx that mikeh gave. However, Mike is right that it very unlikely that you can get back to spades after 3C, unless parter has 3-card support, a weak doubleton in hearts or 3-card spade support (but in the latter case it doesn't matter what you do).

Convenient hand for playing a constructive 2S.

[Hanoi5]

Why didn't your partner bid 3NT?

I wonder if with such a lousy club suit a 1NT rebid might have been better.

I was the only one who bid 3♠ from here so we can play together and get to terrible contracts...