[hanp]

xxxx
K10
Qxx
108xx

2C - 2D (values)
2H (forces 2S) - 2S (forced)
3C (natural, hearts and clubs) - ??

Pairs, forgot about vulnerability.

[Jlall]

I'd def bid 3H.

[Fluffy]

not used of the methods, but I think this showes longer or equal hearts, I'd also bid 3♥ focusing on the most likelly game. With something stronger (add ♣Q for example), 4♣ would be more appealing.

[Free]

3♥, partner can still show more about his hand. Eventually we can still get to 6♣ in many cases if necessary.

[gnasher]

4♣, focussing on the most likely slam. Opposite AKx AQJxx x AKQx, which is not necessarily a 2♣ opener, and where 2/5 of our points are completely wasted, slam is in the high 60s. That heart holding is really good for a club contact.

[Phil]

Jlall, on Mar 31 2010, 08:51 AM, said:

I'd def bid 3H.

Me too. I am close to a minimum and its pairs.

4♣ is chasing moonbeams.

[Apollo81]

Agree with gnasher, I think slam will make pretty often.

[Jlall]

gnasher, on Mar 31 2010, 08:58 AM, said:

Opposite AKx AQJxx x AKQx, which is not necessarily a 2♣ opener

How is this not necessarily a 2C opener?

[ArtK78]

Jlall, on Mar 31 2010, 10:20 AM, said:

gnasher, on Mar 31 2010, 08:58 AM, said:

Opposite AKx AQJxx x AKQx, which is not necessarily a 2♣ opener

How is this not necessarily a 2C opener?

And I thought my 2♣ opening requirements were high.

Absolute 2♣ opener.

As for the original problem, I bid 3♥. I have one sure cover card (the ♥K) opposite a 3 or less loser hand (the typical loser count for a 2♣ opening). The ♦Q is a potential cover card if partner has diamond length. In any event, it is not clear that slam is in the picture. For example, partner could have a solid 2♣ opener like this one:

AKQ AQJxx x AKxx

Slam is virtually hopeless on this hand (on a non-diamond lead 6♣ has a chance).

If partner moves towards slam I will try to offer a choice of slams. If the club fit is solid, clubs is likely to be a better place to play slam. For example:

x AQJxx Ax AKQxx

Now this hand is a borderline 2♣ opening, but 6♣ rates to be easy.

[Fluffy]

rather than offer a choice Art, if given the opportunity I will try to impose clubs for slam

[ArtK78]

Fluffy, on Mar 31 2010, 02:46 PM, said:

rather than offer a choice Art, if given the opportunity I will try to impose clubs for slam

If you bid 3♥ over 3♣, can you really impose clubs as the trump suit later in the auction? If not, do you recommend bidding 4♣ now?

[Fluffy]

yeah yeah, I know what you mean, was just a joke.

If partner bids 4♣ next I think it is time to make it clear that we wanna play clubs, with a raise to the 6 level he should get the message.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Mar 31 2010, 04:20 PM, said:

gnasher, on Mar 31 2010, 08:58 AM, said:

Opposite AKx AQJxx x AKQx, which is not necessarily a 2♣ opener

How is this not necessarily a 2C opener?

It seems to have grown in high cards since I created it.

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on Mar 31 2010, 04:33 PM, said:

For example, partner could have a solid 2♣ opener like this one:

AKQ AQJxx x AKxx

Slam is virtually hopeless on this hand (on a non-diamond lead 6♣ has a chance).

So what? 4♣ doesn't compel us to bid slam.

It's true that 5♣ is a worse game than 4♥, but that's what happens if you construct a hand where none of his minor honours are in clubs. If he had AKQ AQxxx x AKJx we'd be better off in 5♣ than 4♥.

[mikeh]

I would bid 3♥. This shouldn't rule out a club contract, altho we may need sophisticated agreements, or luck, to get back to the suit. I have never discussed this with any partner, and I know the sequences are not directly comparable, but in a sequence such as 1♥  1♠  3♣  3♥, virtually all experts would, I think, stall with 3♥ on most hands containing K10 in hearts and xxxx in clubs. I appreciate that one major difference is that after a kokish auction, 3♣ is 'real' whereas the jumpshift may be a distortion necessitated by the need to create a force. However, the same needs apply: a desire to keep the bidding low rather than committing to a suit that may be far too weak for slam or even game purposes. In addition, this is mps where 10 tricks in hearts outscores 11 in clubs.

I do think that opener, with a slam suitable 2-suiter, should bid 4♣ naturally rather than as a cue bid. Then we raise to 5♣ or 6♣ depending on our partnership's view of the minimum strength of a 2-suited 2♣ opening....it should have play even if it is poor...they probably have to guess which pointed suit to lead to have any chance of beating it.

The need to use 4♣ over 3♥ as natural is not too much of a problem since he will rarely have unilateral slam interest without a spade control, so he can start slamtries with 3♠...which I do NOT think should be natural, patterning out...or am I allowing this hand and auction to influence me?

[nige1]

hanp, on Mar 31 2010, 08:31 AM, said:

xxxx K10 Qxx 108xx
2C - 2D (values)
2H (forces 2S) - 2S (forced)
3C (natural, hearts and clubs) - ??
Pairs, forgot about vulnerability.

I like the Kokish convention. IMO, with a ♣ fit but without ♥ support, you should try to bid at the 3-level to keep 3N in the frame. Hence, bids at the 4-level normally show a double fit. Anyway, whatever it means, a 4♣ bid doesn't preclude either player from suggesting 4♥ as a contract -- by bidding it. In principle, a return to the major at the 4 level offers a choice of games. Hence ...
4♣ = 10, 4♥ = 9, 3♥ = 5.

BTW, my marks are simply a way of expressing the degree of my preference between calls that I consider making. Not a patronising attempt to rate other poster's comments.

[cherdanno]

gnasher, on Mar 31 2010, 04:06 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Mar 31 2010, 04:33 PM, said:

For example, partner could have a solid 2♣ opener like this one:

AKQ AQJxx x AKxx

Slam is virtually hopeless on this hand (on a non-diamond lead 6♣ has a chance).

So what? 4♣ doesn't compel us to bid slam.

It's true that 5♣ is a worse game than 4♥, but that's what happens if you construct a hand where none of his minor honours are in clubs. If he had AKQ AQxxx x AKJx we'd be better off in 5♣ than 4♥.

I think the scoring is matchpoints. I would raise to 4♣ at IMPs but at matchpoints raising clubs almost seems like betting we have slam.

Last time I thought about this auction I thought 3♥ should show a fit. The difference to the jump shift auction is obvious - we are much more likely to have a heart fit (as we couldn't raise hearts before), and partner is unlimited. I think showing a fit here is really important.

Maybe I would bid 3H anyway, or I would bid 4C and hope partner can bid 4H (which I would pass), I still don't know...

[Codo]

At imps always 4♣,

[hanp]

It's not imps.

[karlson]

cherdanno, on Mar 31 2010, 06:18 PM, said:

Last time I thought about this auction I thought 3♥ should show a fit. The difference to the jump shift auction is obvious - we are much more likely to have a heart fit (as we couldn't raise hearts before), and partner is unlimited. I think showing a fit here is really important.

Maybe I would bid 3H anyway, or I would bid 4C and hope partner can bid 4H (which I would pass), I still don't know...

Or you could play the kokish version I like where 3s shows a real fit and 3h can be a doubleton (and you show spades by bidding 2h-2n).

I would also bid 4c and hope that partner bids 4h.