[olegeorge]

Pass, Pass, Pass, and I had:

♠ AKQJ3
♥ Void
♦A
♣AQJ9853

I opened 2♣ and partner responded
2♦ - waiting only (2♥ would have been negative)

How should I have bid the hand - to show my 2 long suits?

We were lucky - and got a next to top as follows:

2♣
2♦
3♣
3♥
6♣
7 NT - which was cold.

The only issues on the hand are - IF NT - partner needs (of course) to have the A♥ and the K♣

One guy said: 2♣, 2♦, 2♠, (whatever), and then 6♣

Thanks!

[mike777]

2c=2d(random a or k)
3c(long clubs 3 loser hand)=3h
3s(natural)=?

----------

option two:

2c=2d
3c=3h
4c=?

btw I will assume kickback so 4d in option 2=rkc for clubs.

[pooltuna]

olegeorge, on Apr 29 2010, 06:24 PM, said:

Pass, Pass, Pass, and I had:

♠ AKQJ3
♥ Void
♦A
♣AQJ9853

I opened 2♣ and partner responded
2♦ - waiting only (2♥ would have been negative)

How should I have bid the hand - to show my 2 long suits?

We were lucky - and got a next to top as follows:

2♣
2♦
3♣
3♥
6♣
7 NT - which was cold.

The only issues on the hand are - IF NT - partner needs (of course) to have the A♥ and the K♣

One guy said: 2♣, 2♦, 2♠, (whatever), and then 6♣

Thanks!

I seem to recall a recent thread where an auction like 2♣-2♦; 6♣ showed something like a hand where your partner could raise to 7 with the ♣K. Of course that doesn't help you if you belong instead in 7♠

[hijumper]

I am sorry to say the bidding course is the ugliest I have ever seen.

[aguahombre]

If 2C -2D, 3any sets trump and demands specific info --this one is easy. If with a pickup partner it is not.

2C-2D*(waiting)
3C-4H* (jump to show high club, H to show Ace).
7N (no need for further asking bids this time)

If partner's rebid were different, asking bids would still uncover whether there is a spade fit.

[kfay]

I bid 4♣ over 2♦

But then again I didn't realize I had 5 spades...

Maybe I still bid 4♣.

[ArtK78]

aguahombre, on Apr 30 2010, 12:07 PM, said:

If 2C -2D, 3any sets trump and demands specific info --this one is easy.  If with a pickup partner it is not. 

2C-2D*(waiting)
3C-4H* (jump to show high club, H to show Ace).
7N (no need for further asking bids this time)

If partner's rebid were different, asking bids would still uncover whether there is a spade fit.

A 3♣ rebid sets the trump suit and asks for specific info? I imagine that that method would have its successes, but it would make a number of hands unbiddable.

Suppose you held this rather innocuous strong hand:

x
AKQ
AKx
AKJxxx

After 2♣ - 2♦, what are you supposed to bid? I do not want to unilaterally set clubs as trump on this hand. But what bid do you suggest other than 3♣?

Or suppose you have an even more commonplace hand like this:

AKJx
AQx
x
AKQTx

Am I supposed to bid 2♠ over 2♦? Do you play Canape after 2♣ openings?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

One option is to open 1C.

If you open 2C, you have basically reached 3S, and at best shown 6 clubs,
4spades.
The risk that 1C gets passed out with "only" 21HCP and 25 missing red cards
is very low.
And you will be a lot better placed, if they come in, not unlikely given
that you are missing 25 ..., we had this one already.

Your plan is to make a reverse with 2S, repeat spades, showing 6-5,
which is already pretty close to the distribution you hold.
An alternative option is to use special openings.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[FrancesHinden]

Playing matchpoints I would bid my suits in the natural order, and keep bidding them.

2C - 2D
3C - 3H
3S - ?

I don't know what will happen next, but of course I'm driving to 6C, and partner will bid 7 with the king.

If I could self-agree clubs and then ask for keycards, I would, but personally I can't.

[gwnn]

Where are you Cascade? He has 3NT as specific ace ask then 4NT is specific king ask I think. Apparently the hand where it's useful has finally been dealt, albeit on a different continent

[aguahombre]

ArtK: those hands are handled differently...was just telling you what 2C followed by a 3-level bid shows in our style, which might be interesting to some people. What we do with the hands you gave would be a total hijack to describe here.

And, as before, am not advocating anything. Just giving another approach.