[Cascade]

Scoring: IMP

1♥ 2♦
2♥ 3♣
?

---

Do you show your great spade stop or you excellent fit?

2/1 normal 1RF
3♣ GF (but can stop in 4m on some auctions - but not after a direct raise)

[P_Marlowe]

4C.

Make it MP, 3NT becomes more attractive, but
I still would bid 4C.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Codo]

Way too many hands which make slam great and 5 Club superior to 3 NT.

4 ♣ is it.

[dake50]

Agree 6C way too appealing to show S-stops. 2xD-ruffs sets up 3+D, top honor in 4-support and HA +SKQ. 7C closer to best than 3NT.

[Phil]

3N.

Ask yourself if you want to be in 6♣ opposite a very typical hand like ♠xx ♥x ♦AKJxxx ♣AQxx because thats where you'll end up if you bypass 3N.

If pard has more than this, we'll hear about it over 3N.

[hrothgar]

Mark me down for a club raise (Exploring NT would be much more attractive at MPs)

Question for the peanut gallery:

What is 4♦?

Splinter raise of Clubs?
Keycard in Clubs?
Other?

[jdonn]

Phil, on Jul 8 2009, 11:00 AM, said:

3N.

Ask yourself if you want to be in 6♣ opposite a very typical hand like ♠xx ♥x ♦AKJxxx ♣AQxx because thats where you'll end up if you bypass 3N.

If pard has more than this, we'll hear about it over 3N.

But what if he has not more than that (or even a bit less) but five clubs? xx x AKxxx AQxxx I certainly want to be in 6♣.

I still think your example was fairly compelling and it's sort of close, but I prefer supporting partner.

[gnasher]

Phil, on Jul 8 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

Ask yourself if you want to be in 6♣ opposite a very typical hand like ♠xx ♥x ♦AKJxxx ♣AQxx because thats where you'll end up if you bypass 3N.

It wouldn't be the end of the world to reach 6♣ opposite that, though ♣J would make it a lot better.

However, if you don't want to reach slam opposite that, you don't have to. The auction will, I assume, continue 4♣-4♦;4♥-5♣, and if you don't fancy 6♣ knowing that ♠A is missing, you can pass.

[Phil]

jdonn, on Jul 8 2009, 11:11 AM, said:

Phil, on Jul 8 2009, 11:00 AM, said:

3N.

Ask yourself if you want to be in 6♣ opposite a very typical hand like ♠xx ♥x ♦AKJxxx ♣AQxx because thats where you'll end up if you bypass 3N.

If pard has more than this, we'll hear about it over 3N.

But what if he has not more than that (or even a bit less) but five clubs? xx x AKxxx AQxxx I certainly want to be in 6♣.

I still think your example was fairly compelling and it's sort of close, but I prefer supporting partner.

Yes its close (I won't deny that) and with a minimish 5-5 I might miss a good slam, but with a sliver more than your example he might bid on and he might bid on anyway, especially with a major suit void.

[Hanoi5]

4♣ this is not a bad hand for slam. At all.

[Jlall]

lol at the thought of not bidding 4C

edit: LOL

[peachy]

4C. We bypass 3NT but that is the price in this hand, in case 3NT made and 6C didnt or reward in case both 3NT nd 6C made.

[aguahombre]

Jlall, on Jul 8 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

lol at the thought of not bidding 4C

edit: LOL

IMHO, this increases your righteous "LOL" % to about 91.46. Sometimes the dismissive LOL seems wrong, when others have given reasonable justification for different answers

[Cascade]

peachy, on Jul 9 2009, 10:48 AM, said:

4C. We bypass 3NT but that is the price in this hand, in case 3NT made and 6C didnt or reward in case both 3NT nd 6C made.

There is no price if 3NT and 5♣ both make. Bypassing 3NT does not require that you then must bid a slam.

[the hog]

3NT. I really dislike my void in partner's primary suit and need to show the double S stoppers here. These cards may be totally wasted in a C contract.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jul 8 2009, 06:44 PM, said:

peachy, on Jul 9 2009, 10:48 AM, said:

4C.  We bypass 3NT but that is the price in this hand, in case 3NT made and 6C didnt or reward in case both 3NT nd 6C made.

There is no price if 3NT and 5♣ both make. Bypassing 3NT does not require that you then must bid a slam.

I don't think I would be nitpicking to disagree. The price to bidding 4♣ if 3NT and 5♣ are both making is that instead of directly reaching a making contract, you have to use further judgment to stop at a making contract. You aren't required to bid 6♣ after 4♣, but you may still do so when it's wrong.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 9 2009, 12:09 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 8 2009, 06:44 PM, said:

peachy, on Jul 9 2009, 10:48 AM, said:

4C.  We bypass 3NT but that is the price in this hand, in case 3NT made and 6C didnt or reward in case both 3NT nd 6C made.

There is no price if 3NT and 5♣ both make. Bypassing 3NT does not require that you then must bid a slam.

I don't think I would be nitpicking to disagree. The price to bidding 4♣ if 3NT and 5♣ are both making is that instead of directly reaching a making contract, you have to use further judgment to stop at a making contract. You aren't required to bid 6♣ after 4♣, but you may still do so when it's wrong.

Agreed.

There are other cases though that are relevant for example when 3NT is not making and 5♣ (or 6♣) is making.

[kenrexford]

I really don't get any of these answers, insofar as no one seems to be pointing out what I see as the "obvious problem."

Why does everyone think that 3♣ promises clubs?

If 2♦ was not GF, then 2♦...3♦ surely is not GF. Hence, 3♣ in this sequence seems to be a catch-all bid, covering a few possible hands:

1. Diamonds and clubs, GF
2. Long diamonds, GF, possible slam aspirations in diamonds
3. Diamonds, no heart fit, no spade stopper

I mean, sure. If partner only has 0-1 hearts (is that another option for 3♣? I think so), and 0-3 spades, then he probably has real clubs. But, what about a simple 3163? That's fairly common. If his spades are xxx and his diamonds AQx, then 3♣ looks about right, to explore 3NT.

Whatever you take from that issue, I'm surprised that no one seems to ask that question -- does partner really have clubs?

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on Jul 10 2009, 01:57 AM, said:

I really don't get any of these answers, insofar as no one seems to be pointing out what I see as the "obvious problem."

Why does everyone think that 3♣ promises clubs?

If 2♦ was not GF, then 2♦...3♦ surely is not GF.  Hence, 3♣ in this sequence seems to be a catch-all bid, covering a few possible hands:

1. Diamonds and clubs, GF
2. Long diamonds, GF, possible slam aspirations in diamonds
3. Diamonds, no heart fit, no spade stopper

I mean, sure.  If partner only has 0-1 hearts (is that another option for 3♣?  I think so), and 0-3 spades, then he probably has real clubs.  But, what about a simple 3163?  That's fairly common.  If his spades are xxx and his diamonds AQx, then 3♣ looks about right, to explore 3NT.

Whatever you take from that issue, I'm surprised that no one seems to ask that question -- does partner really have clubs?

I didn't say but 2♦ ... 3♣ really does promise clubs. We do something else without clubs (2NT artificial force - although always support or single-suited or balanced).

(I would have alerted if 3♣ was artificial )

[the hog]

kenrexford, on Jul 9 2009, 08:57 PM, said:

I really don't get any of these answers, insofar as no one seems to be pointing out what I see as the "obvious problem."

Why does everyone think that 3♣ promises clubs?

Whatever you take from that issue, I'm surprised that no one seems to ask that question -- does partner really have clubs?

roflmao!