[mw64ahw]

jillybean, on 2023-May-31, 21:16, said:

1♠ 2♣*
2♠ 3♣ to show the club length
3♠ now what

I bid 2♥ rather than 2♠ as you have the option of placing the contract with a self-sustaining suit.

[mw64ahw]

apollo1201, on 2023-May-31, 15:53, said:

A clear 2C, GF.

There could be a case to bid 3C, 6+, invitational, at pairs, had we not a 4-cd H suit.

But 1NT does not make justice to the hand. We won’t be able to catch up, partner will not guess we have 12 HCP, 2 aces, honors working together… Sure, the S void is not an asset so I won’t push unless partner gets excited.

Perhaps not if you find yourself facing a minimum without the entries to ♠/♣ and go down especially if you stretch to open.

I also have the 3♣ bid, but not with the ♥. I did run a number of simulations when considering whether 11 or 12 should be the top end of the range for this bid, settling on 12 especially with the void.

[LBengtsson]

mw64ahw, on 2023-May-31, 23:25, said:

I bid 2♥ rather than 2♠ as you have the option of placing the contract with a self-sustaining suit.

That is easy to say seeing all the cards, but I agree with this principle +1. What does 2♠ then 3♠ after 2♣/3♣ actually tell us? Nothing much other than North is possibly minimum with a 6(+) ♠ suit. I think if you are at least 5+♠4+♥ shape, you should be able to mention the ♥ suit at the two level. I doubt if any 2/1 books - well I had look through a couple - cover this topic adequately. The problem with this principle though is that when you then mention the ♠ suit again is it looked upon as length or could be taken for some other conventional bid such as a cue.

It is a good hand to post, jillybean, so +1 to you also.

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2023-May-31, 21:16, said:

1♠ 2♣*
2♠ 3♣ to show the club length
3♠ now what

Now partner has shown a decent 7-card suit in spades and set trumps by partnership agreement. In my experience this is one of the sequences many weaker players get wrong - bidding your major suit for the third time without a jump is not consultative. If you belong in any other strain you should have made an effort to bid them, and weaker hands can jump to game with a long suit. This is a try for 6♠, although you may correct to 6NT. Your hand can hardly be less suitable, and I would bid 4♠. Partner will expect a singleton in support at most.

I don't know why we would rebid 3♣ rather than 3♥ though. That rebid shows a clubs-hearts two-suiter. Seems reasonable.

mw64ahw, on 2023-May-31, 23:25, said:

I bid 2♥ rather than 2♠ as you have the option of placing the contract with a self-sustaining suit.

With 7 nice spades and 4 soft hearts I would bypass the hearts always, and I think it is strange to not do so. Even with a 4-4 heart fit (it is a near certainty we don't have a 4-5 heart fit after 2♣) the spades are likely to play better - if we can't establish the spades this hand doesn't have a source of tricks.

LBengtsson, on 2023-June-01, 01:10, said:

That is easy to say seeing all the cards, but I agree with this principle +1. What does 2♠ then 3♠ after 2♣/3♣ actually tell us? Nothing much other than North is possibly minimum with a 6(+) ♠ suit. I think if you are at least 5+♠4+♥ shape, you should be able to mention the ♥ suit at the two level. I doubt if any 2/1 books - well I had look through a couple - cover this topic adequately. The problem with this principle though is that when you then mention the ♠ suit again is it looked upon as length or could be taken for some other conventional bid such as a cue.

It is a good hand to post, jillybean, so +1 to you also.

This is exactly what I meant. I have not been able to find any books that cover this adequately, and I struggled quite a bit with convincing my partners to stop bidding their 6-card suit a third time ("But the second time could have been five, so of course I had to show my sixth on the third round!"). There are numerous solutions out there. Personally I think that weaving the (semi)balanced minimum hands in with the 6(+) major suit hands is a clear mistake in system design, and rebidding suits that are not self sustainable twice is doubling down on that mistake. Keep in mind partner had 3♦ and 3♥ available over 3♣ on the example auction. What would those have meant, having denied length in those suits on the previous rounds? To me those bids show doubt about strain, and promise a sixth spade while showing values(/a fragment).

[mw64ahw]

I've moved away from a standard approach so never rebid 2♠ to show 6 or balanced. This is why I show the ♥ first and I'm happy with KJxx if playing standard. A direct 3♠ shows the self-sustaining hand with extras if I do want to skip ♥

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2023-June-01, 02:12, said:

Now partner has shown a decent 7-card suit in spades and set trumps by partnership agreement. In my experience this is one of the sequences many weaker players get wrong - bidding your major suit for the third time without a jump is not consultative. If you belong in any other strain you should have made an effort to bid them, and weaker hands can jump to game with a long suit. This is a try for 6♠, although you may correct to 6NT. Your hand can hardly be less suitable, and I would bid 4♠. Partner will expect a singleton in support at most.

I don't know why we would rebid 3♣ rather than 3♥ though. That rebid shows a clubs-hearts two-suiter. Seems reasonable.

How do I distinguish between a 1♠:2♣* clubs-hearts two-suiter and a 1♠:2♣* balanced hand, clubs-hearts probing for a diamond stopper?
I thought it was necessary to bid clubs a second time to show the club suit.

[DavidKok]

Balanced hands without a major suit fit don't probe for a diamond stopper. Where else do you want to play? There's no point asking if you don't have a good way to handle a negative response.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2023-June-01, 07:51, said:

Balanced hands without a major suit fit don't probe for a diamond stopper. Where else do you want to play? There's no point asking if you don't have a good way to handle a negative response.

What do I do with Kxxxx,xx,AKQx,xx xx,AKQx,xx,Kxxxxx after partner opens 1♠:2♣* 2♠:?

Make that Kxxxx,xxx,AKQx,x. x,AKQx,xxx,Kxxxxx

I don't have a ♦ stopper, partner may a partial stop, they need to bid nt

[DavidKok]

I'm sorry, partner opens in our 5-card spade suit? I would raise partner with 2NT.

[jillybean]

Oh never mind, I'm getting stuck thinking a 2 suiter is 6-5/6-4 type distribution and the struggles we had when 1M:2x 2M was with 5+ cards

[apollo1201]

mw64ahw, on 2023-May-31, 23:32, said:

Perhaps not if you find yourself facing a minimum without the entries to ♠/♣ and go down especially if you stretch to open.

I also have the 3♣ bid, but not with the ♥. I did run a number of simulations when considering whether 11 or 12 should be the top end of the range for this bid, settling on 12 especially with the void.

GF does just mean we are not stopping below, it doesn’t mean we ll make it

I completely agree that I might go down in game - like a horrible 3NT when partner opened a shapely reverse 64 hand (or 55)

But I didn’t pay my entry fees to play a partial score on this one😁😁😁

[bluenikki]

jillybean, on 2023-June-01, 07:41, said:

I thought it was necessary to bid clubs a second time to show the club suit.

If not playing 2/1 gf, you are forced to rebid 3♥, suppressing the main feature of the hand. the _strong_ 6+ ♣.

The purpose of 2/1 is to let you describe your hand, I thought. Foolish me.

[bluenikki]

apollo1201, on 2023-June-01, 12:26, said:

GF does just mean we are not stopping below, it doesn’t mean we ll make it

No, apparently it also means the opponents can't make a highlevel contract

[jillybean]

bluenikki, on 2023-June-01, 15:04, said:

If not playing 2/1 gf, you are forced to rebid 3♥, suppressing the main feature of the hand. the _strong_ 6+ ♣.

The purpose of 2/1 is to let you describe your hand, I thought. Foolish me.

We play 2♣/1M GF clubs or balanced, if balanced clubs can be as short as 2 , (I'd like to play it as short as 0) with 6+ clubs we would rebid the clubs.
On this hand, as David pointed out, the correct bid is 3♥

[mw64ahw]

jillybean, on 2023-June-01, 23:31, said:

We play 2♣/1M GF clubs or balanced, if balanced clubs can be as short as 2 , (I'd like to play it as short as 0) with 6+ clubs we would rebid the clubs.
On this hand, as David pointed out, the correct bid is 3♥

Does the balanced include 2353 & 2533 or are these still 2♦ & 2♥ responses?

[jillybean]

mw64ahw, on 2023-June-02, 01:08, said:

Does the balanced include 2353 & 2533 or are these still 2♦ & 2♥ responses?

We currently show these 5 card suits at the 2level. 1♠:2♦, 1♠:2♥

[bluenikki]

jillybean, on 2023-June-01, 23:31, said:

On this hand, as David pointed out, the correct bid is 3♥

So you think it is iOK to bid the same way as when you exchange the heart 10 with the club queen.

Seems nuts to me.

[jillybean]

bluenikki, on 2023-June-02, 11:40, said:

So you think it is iOK to bid the same way as when you exchange the heart 10 with the club queen.

Seems nuts to me.

I don't understand your question, what is Souths hand now?

---

[bluenikki]

♣

jillybean, on 2023-June-02, 12:06, said:

I don't understand your question, what is Souths hand now?

---

Compare the hand with the one where the hearts are AQJx and the clubs A10xxxx. Should they be bid the same? You think so. I do not.

When 2♣ is not forcing to game, you _must_. That is _bad_. Why would you do it voluntarily?

[Gerardo]

jillybean, on 2023-June-02, 12:06, said:

I don't understand your question, what is Souths hand now?

---

4+♥, longer ♣, GF