[vuroth]

Scoring: IMP

1♠ 2♣
?

---

If it matters, we're following Thurston, but the book doesn't seem to help....

[rogerclee]

2S seems like the book/normal bid, only because I don't see why any other clever alternative would be better. In fact if you don't bid 2S now partner will never play you for 6, 2C could be as short as 3, and you can bid clubs naturally later if you don't have a 6-3 spade fit.

What alternative did you have in mind?

[vuroth]

One suggestion for 3♠, one for 3♣

[rogerclee]

vuroth, on Mar 2 2010, 06:35 PM, said:

One suggestion for 3♠, one for 3♣

I would never consider 3S even if it did not promise a very good suit (I play a style where it promises a very good suit). The reason for this is not hard to see; you might belong in clubs! It is hard to get to clubs after you jump to 3S. Going slower is better for keeping both strains in play.

The same argument applies against 3C; after you bid 3C partner will never think you have spades this good. In fact if you were going to raise clubs I would recommend 3♦ as a splinter, but again, it is too premature; just keep the level low with 2S and find out more information from partner the slow way. Whether partner raises 2S to 3S or bids 2N over 2S, you are well placed for the rest of the auction.

[karlson]

I have to admit that I would splinter, especially if playing a style where one bids 2d with 4 diamonds and 3 clubs. Yes, you can bid 3c after 2s-2n, but responder will assume 3-card support and not 4 (in fact a recent thread suggested 3c on a doubleton iirc). If you have 9 spades, responder can bid 3s and you will still get to spades that way, even at the same level, with much more information exchanged (especially since 2s doesn't say much of anything).

Over 2s, it seems easy to imagine an auction like 1s-2c-2s-2n-3c-3n. I guess if you're going to move over this, then starting with 2s seems ok, but I don't think it's clear to do so. What if responder bids 3n over 2n? Again, doesn't seem like a great auction. Even over 3red, 4c doesn't show this good a hand for clubs.

Basically I agree with clee that partner won't play us for spades this good if we don't bid 2s, but I think it's more important that partner will never play us for clubs this good if we don't bid 3d. I think that the "keeping the level low" argument is kind of an illusion - either we're going to set spades at 3s, or we're going to have to go to a pretty high level to really show clubs.

[PhantomSac]

I'd splinter also.

[rogerclee]

I think if we splinter and partner bids 3N that leaves us in a bad/complicated position.

[TylerE]

As opposed to feeling GOOD when it goes 1!S-2♣-2♠-3N???

[Cascade]

Splinters are great especially when they are as low as 3♦.

They are a springboard to good slams.

They help us in choice of games.

[kenrexford]

I'd bid 2♠ because I'm willing to bid past 3NT to support clubs, but I can see other approaches as reasonable.

[rogerclee]

TylerE, on Mar 2 2010, 08:31 PM, said:

As opposed to feeling GOOD when it goes 1!S-2♣-2♠-3N???

Feel free to disagree with me, but please, don't do it with arguments like this.

[peachy]

2S. We are in gameforce, let's proceed to see what our strain and level should be. I would not bid 3S because it will bury the possible club fit.

[Codo]

3♦ nothing else matters.

Of course, if you play a style where2 ♣can be bid with 2443, then you surely had told us.

[mich-b]

I would splinter , or support ♣s.
Bidding 2♠ now, and ♣s later, would show 3 card ♣ support for us.

I understand this may be different for those who regularly respond 2♣ with all balnced hands, but as long as 2♣ shows 4 (except perhaps 3433 exactly) I think I need to support.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

3D - splinter, we have found a fit, unless you play 2C as artificial,
in which case 2S it is.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[vuroth]

Ok, so what I was after was 2 things:

- show spades or show clubs?
- do I need to jump or otherwise alter my bid based on my extra strength?

Seems like there are 4 key points being made, if I understand correctly:

- the jury is a bit split between showing my spade length vs showing support for clubs
- the jury prefers showing club support via a splinter, rather than a direct raise
- the decision between showing clubs and showing spades may depend on the partnership agreement of 2♣ - if it shows a real suit, more preference to support
- there's no reason to jump bid or otherwise worry about "showing my strength"...yet.

Sound right?

Thanks, all.

[jjbrr]

vuroth, on Mar 3 2010, 10:25 AM, said:

Ok, so what I was after was 2 things:

- show spades or show clubs?
- do I need to jump or otherwise alter my bid based on my extra strength?

Seems like there are 4 key points being made, if I understand correctly:

- the jury is a bit split between showing my spade length vs showing support for clubs
- the jury prefers showing club support via a splinter, rather than a direct raise
- the decision between showing clubs and showing spades may depend on the partnership agreement of 2♣ - if it shows a real suit, more preference to support
- there's no reason to jump bid or otherwise worry about "showing my strength"...yet.

Sound right?

Thanks, all.

Sounds right.

To me it seems you will likely survive regardless of your decision now to bid 2♠ or to splinter in ♣, which I think are the two best options. You're correct that if you decide to bid 2♠, you aren't worried about showing your strength now because you'll bid more later, like 4♣ over 3NT or 5♣ over 4♠ or whatever.

[PhantomSac]

Vuroth, these 6-4 type hands come up pretty often.

My general rule is to only rebid 2S with strong spades and with a minimum hand. With a good hand I always start with a splinter, and with weak spades and good clubs I always splinter.

Just how I handle it, everyone is different.

[Fluffy]

I would be the only one to show support with 3♣ since I play 3♦ as nat.

Althou there is much more to it, for a BIL I think you would bid better if you just though: rebiddign spades shows partner 1 card (rebidding 2♠ actually show no card for many people), supporting clubs show 4, supporting clubs is more descriptive.

[nige1]

vuroth, on Mar 2 2010, 08:30 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♠ 2♣
?
If it matters, we're following Thurston, but the book doesn't seem to help....

---

Google says that Thurston writes books about 2/1, a system I don't know. When 2♣ is game-forcing, however, you must be spoilt for choice. Presumably, you can allocate some of those choices to fit-showing bids. The main features of this hand are

• ♣ fit.
  
• Good 6 card ♠ suit - may be the best chance of a safe game.
  
• A bit of extra strength.
  
• ♦ Shortage.

I suppose, by agreement 3♠ or 3N might show some of this. Otherwise, I think you should just bid 2♠. 3♣ may be OK if partner can still admit to spade tolerance. 3♦ splinter seems commital, unless you can still subside in a ♠ contract. I am worried that subsequent ♠ bids may be misinterpreted as cues.