[Echognome]

Scoring: IMP

1♣ - 1♠;
?

---

What's your choice?

[mike777]

2s

really tough


2c could be so much weaker.....

[mohitz]

3♣

good enough i say. Nice primary suit, Qxx in partner's suit, Axx and x in the unbid suit is also great. Definitely worth an upgrade IMO.

[gwnn]

All other things being equal always go for the overbid. 3♣.

[jdonn]

Well I would never bid 3♣ because if I'm worth it I should bid 2♥ instead.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

It is either 2S or 3C.

I think the hand is too strong for 2S, so I would go with 3C.
It would be brilliant, if 3C showed 6 clubs and 3 spades, but
If this would be the case, you would not ask.

It helps, if partnership agreed to play openers 3? rebid Acol
style, i.e. slightly lighter than American style.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: The bid, that is out of scope for me is 2H, I am old school,
I want to have 4hearts, although - if p has 4 hearts, he has 5
spades, i.e. on 2nd though 2H is a nice bid, but ..., it will never
cross my mind.

[jdonn]

Sorry 2♥ is obv better than 3♣. Think about what will happen:
- If partner has 5+ spades he rebids 2♠ and you raise, pinpointing your key diamond shortness and finding the spade fit.
- If partner has 4 hearts he must have 5+ spades and you convert the heart raise to spades, same advantage as above.
- If partner has 4 spades and fewer than 4 hearts, if he is weak he will bid 2NT which you are happy to bid 3♣ over and play there.
- If partner has 4 spades and fewer than 4 hearts, if he is game forcing then over any bid you can bid 3♠ once again pinpointing your key diamond shortness.

There is no big weakness (other than that you might be overbidding which is an equivalent argument against 3♣). Yes you don't mention your 6th club but that is unlikely to cost you. However over 3♣ there are at least two huge problems. One is you could miss a 5-3 spade fit which makes game, say KJTxx Kxx xxxx x where he will pass and personally I want to be in game. The other is if he bids 3 of a red suit next and you bid 3♠ he doesn't know which red suit you are short in and may have an impossible 3NT decision.

[the hog]

2S for me.

Isn't:
1C 1S
2H 4H
4S a cue bid as h is the agreed "suit"?

[jdonn]

Why would you ever bid 4♥? If you do it should show a very minimal 5-5 hand and you are fine anyway. Personally I'm quite sure I have never bid it, a forcing 3♥ always suffices.

[whereagles]

Definitely 3♣. I could easily have had an ace less.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Mar 23 2010, 03:46 PM, said:

Why would you ever bid 4♥? If you do it should show a very minimal 5-5 hand and you are fine anyway. Personally I'm quite sure I have never bid it, a forcing 3♥ always suffices.

Because 4H would show a min with 4 card support, and as you say, 3H would be forcing and show a much better hand.

[Free]

2♠, support with support. I agree with Josh that 3♣ is aweful in comparisson with 2♥, but I'm not strong enough imo.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Mar 23 2010, 04:32 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 23 2010, 03:46 PM, said:

Why would you ever bid 4♥? If you do it should show a very minimal 5-5 hand and you are fine anyway. Personally I'm quite sure I have never bid it, a forcing 3♥ always suffices.

Because 4H would show a min with 4 card support, and as you say, 3H would be forcing and show a much better hand.

That is "as I say"? Maybe I need to type in a bigger font.

[aguahombre]

The_Hog, on Mar 23 2010, 03:32 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 23 2010, 03:46 PM, said:

Why would you ever bid 4♥? If you do it should show a very minimal 5-5 hand and you are fine anyway. Personally I'm quite sure I have never bid it, a forcing 3♥ always suffices.

Because 4H would show a min with 4 card support, and as you say, 3H would be forcing and show a much better hand.

No, leben would be used with a weak 5-4, not a jump. This opener is still safe reversing to 2H if that is the case --since it would continue 3C(weak reverse) -3H-3S.

It would seem the only problem with the reverse would be if responder is NOT weak and cannot picture an upraded 14 count.

[Siegmund]

A historic moment, josh and I liking the same bid on a hand...

IMO it's a touch too strong for 2S/2C; that means a spade raise is telling TWO lies (spade length and hand strength) while 3C or 2H is telling only one - and, among other things, 2H makes it easier to find out if partner wants to rebid his spades or not.

[mikegill]

I strongly disagree with 2♠ because I think it's off on values and I don't like to raise on 3 if there's a reasonable alternative, which clearly exists here. I suspect I would have bid 3♣ at the table without thinking about it too much. I certainly wouldn't be sure enough ATT that nothing really bad could happen to 2♥, but I suspect that Jdonn is right and you are pretty safe.

I'm a little worried about when partner has 5-4, since he will probably raise to 3♥, then we will bid 3♠. If partner bids 4♥ now, 4♠ might be interpreted as a cuebid or kickback or something, and does this mean when I'm actually 3415 or 3406 I should think twice about bidding 3♠ as a natural description because partner won't be able to make an intelligent choice between the majors as he's worried I have only 3 hearts. I feel like there's certainly -some- loss from more frequently bidding 3-card suits more frequently like this). For that reason I try to avoid it when there's a reasonable alternative.

If you make the clubs weaker (AKxxxx, say), then I would definitely do it because 3♣ is a distortion as well. Here, with AKJ9xx, I think I would risk the downsides that Jdonn cites because they seem small to me.

[hrothgar]

Obvious 2♦ rebid...

Wait, you mean that I'm not playing Polish Club???

In that case, mark me down for 2♠. This is a great hand to play in a Moysian

[jdonn]

If it goes 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠ then spades are trumps unless partner is 5-5. He is absolutely supposed to know you can have this shape.

[quiddity]

*shrug* - 2♣ for me. If we have a game I hope I'll get another bid. And it's certainly possible that a club partial is our best spot.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Mar 24 2010, 03:13 AM, said:

If it goes 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠ then spades are trumps unless partner is 5-5. He is absolutely supposed to know you can have this shape.

So that means if you have 5-4 you *have* to play in the 5-3 rather than the 4-4 fit. Seems a fault in the system, yes?