[dwar0123]

matchpoints. 2/1 gf

---

1nt = forcing

No special gadgets, suggesting special gadgets would be futile in this partnership.

[rduran1216]

the first bid is easy, 3♣, what happens now?

[Fluffy]

slam is very unlikelly, 3♣ is the best move to reach it, think of partner raising for example.

The problem with 3♣ is that it missdescribes our hand, something like 1♠-1NT-3♣-3NT-4♠ will often happen, do you think 4♠ shows a solid suit?, I am not quite sure, and I am a bit afraid of partner removing into 5♣.

Reaching a sensible slam and partner removing 4♠ into a dangerous 5 level contract are both very rare, I love to try for slams so would bid 3♣.

[jjbrr]

lol. slam is very unlikely? what? i guess grand is sort of unlikely but let's not even rule that out yet!

[quiddity]

3♣ also overstates our values/defense. I wonder if 2♣ is better. It's extremely unlikely to get passed out and we can hopefully follow up with a jump to 4♠. I don't have much experiences bidding this kind of hand though so it might be a terrible plan.

[rmnka447]

I have no problem with bidding 3 ♣ after 1 NT. The hand is a 3 loser hand. You can't tell the whole story, but partner will at least know you have a powerhouse or a player or both.

The problem with 2 ♣ is that partner can pass it with ♣s minimum values and a stiff ♠. 2 ♣ making 5 or more isn't going to be a very good result.

If partner bids 3 NT after 3 ♣, I see no problem with bidding 4 ♠. It has to show good ♠s because with 7 non descript ♠s, 4 ♠ could be directly bid over 1 NT.

[the hog]

Slam is unlikely as partner figures to have a lot of red cards. however I do need to make a try and 3C looks like the best move.

[Fluffy]

jjbrr, on 2012-April-30, 18:26, said:

slam is very unlikely?

If you mean this to me I will point that what I said was extremelly unlikelly is that we have a sensible bidding that ends up with slam bid with confidence, in other words having slam+ being able to bid it given the amount of useless red cards partner doesn't know they are useless.

[dkham]

I might try 3♣ then 4♣ after partner's bid.

[ahydra]

Another 3-loser hand = another candidate for 2C opener? Give partner the CQ and out and 4S is absolutely fine.

3C is the obvious call now. Whether to bid 4S or 4C next I don't know - but I'd go with 4S because that's where we want to play if partner doesn't have (4-card) club support.

ahydra

[ArtK78]

ahydra, on 2012-May-01, 10:02, said:

Another 3-loser hand = another candidate for 2C opener? Give partner the CQ and out and 4S is absolutely fine.

3C is the obvious call now. Whether to bid 4S or 4C next I don't know - but I'd go with 4S because that's where we want to play if partner doesn't have (4-card) club support.

ahydra

This is about as far from a 2♣ opener as one can get. Lots of offense but only one defensive trick. If the auction gets competitve after a 2♣ opening there is no way you are ever going to introduce both of your suits and reach slam opposite a black ace and the ♣Q (or QJ if partner has length in clubs).

Besides, in some jurisdictions it might be considered a psyche to open 2♣ on this hand.

By the way, 4♠ is absolutely fine on many hands when partner does not have the ♣Q, whether or not 4♠ makes (which it will most of the time).

[Phil]

What is with this thread? 3♣ looks easy, but I don't object to 4♠ either. Anything else looks patently wrong.

[ahydra]

ArtK78, on 2012-May-01, 10:30, said:

This is about as far from a 2♣ opener as one can get. Lots of offense but only one defensive trick. If the auction gets competitve after a 2♣ opening there is no way you are ever going to introduce both of your suits and reach slam opposite a black ace and the ♣Q (or QJ if partner has length in clubs).

Besides, in some jurisdictions it might be considered a psyche to open 2♣ on this hand.

By the way, 4♠ is absolutely fine on many hands when partner does not have the ♣Q, whether or not 4♠ makes (which it will most of the time).

Admittedly I didn't consider whether it's legal or not. It is legal in the EBU (just), which is where I play - not sure about other jurisdictions.

Surely the auction is more likely to get competitive after a 1x opening? For instance opps holding a huge red suit fit will find it after 1S-2red which could be made on a 2(54)2 11-count, whereas the same hand would not bid after 2C. I don't normally open 2C expecting to defend the hand and if partner makes a penalty X, I'll pull it to 4S. You're right in that it will be harder to show the clubs, but with that epic spade suit spades is surely where we're playing most of the time.

Lastly, I'd hate partner to pass 1S on xx xxxxx Qxx Qxx. Perhaps Fantoni and Nunes are onto something with their forcing 1-level openers?

ahydra

[dwar0123]

Thx all, I was afraid 3♣ wasn't forcing and as I can make 4♠ with almost no help, I wasn't sure it was the correct call. 4♠ also seemed to seriously undervalue how little help this hand needed to make slam and as such I was stuck for a bid.

Regardless, if you are curious, over 3♣ partner will bid 3nt over which you will bid 4♠ which is all you can make. Partner indeed had no help.

[jillybean]

I thought 3♣ was highly invitational but nf

[blackshoe]

Opener's strong jump shift is not forcing? Since when?

[the hog]

ahydra, on 2012-May-01, 10:56, said:

Admittedly I didn't consider whether it's legal or not. It is legal in the EBU (just), which is where I play - not sure about other jurisdictions.

Surely the auction is more likely to get competitive after a 1x opening? For instance opps holding a huge red suit fit will find it after 1S-2red which could be made on a 2(54)2 11-count, whereas the same hand would not bid after 2C. I don't normally open 2C expecting to defend the hand and if partner makes a penalty X, I'll pull it to 4S. You're right in that it will be harder to show the clubs, but with that epic spade suit spades is surely where we're playing most of the time.

Lastly, I'd hate partner to pass 1S on xx xxxxx Qxx Qxx. Perhaps Fantoni and Nunes are onto something with their forcing 1-level openers?

ahydra

If your pd has this the opps have 23 HCP. 1S will not get passed. 2C is an awful opening.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-01, 16:15, said:

Opener's strong jump shift is not forcing? Since when?

I'm thinking of 1♣ 1n 3♣ I guess

[jdeegan]

4♠. To me its more important to maximize our chances to make our ♠ game than to investigate the very unlikely ♣ slam. Two things can go wrong with bidding 3♣: (1) we draw a road map for the defense, or (2) the opponents find a useful red suit contract.

[dwar0123]

jdeegan, on 2012-May-01, 23:53, said:

4♠. To me its more important to maximize our chances to make our ♠ game than to investigate the very unlikely ♣ slam. Two things can go wrong with bidding 3♣: (1) we draw a road map for the defense, or (2) the opponents find a useful red suit contract.

My gut tells me that with the auction so far, slam is probably already better then 50%?

Partner is more likely then not to have a black ace and that alone puts 6 into play. Adding anything extra in clubs greatly increases the chances.