[gwnn]

Kxx
KJxxx
Kx
Axx

we're red vs white at mp's, pd deals.

2♠-x-?

what's your plan? would you bid differently if partner were extremely disciplined/extremely frisky?

[rogerclee]

Definitely 4♠, unless partner is extremely aggressive, then I would bid ogust and then game over anything except bad/bad.

[gwnn]

Oh yes, it's MP's. Does that change your decision?

[rogerclee]

gwnn, on Feb 18 2009, 02:01 AM, said:

Oh yes, it's MP's. Does that change it?

nope

[Hanoi5]

I sort of want to redouble or trap pass here. They might play in a minor in which case 4♠ looks so much better, though...

[Codo]

4 ♠ KISS

[ewj]

Yes, easy peasy 4♠ at these colours.

[mtvesuvius]

4♠. If partner pre-empted Jxxxx xx Jxx QJx then this might convince him not to do it again

[Free]

I don't have the courage to bid 3NT. 4♠ it is.

[FrancesHinden]

mtvesuvius, on Feb 18 2009, 02:41 PM, said:

4♠. If partner pre-empted Jxxxx xx Jxx QJx then this might convince him not to do it again

And what if he opened 2S on

AQJxxx
x
Qxx
xxx

?

It depends a bit on what you think a minimum and maximum 2S bid looks like, but I think I have an invite, in whatever methods I play.

[mtvesuvius]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 18 2009, 09:49 AM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Feb 18 2009, 02:41 PM, said:

4♠. If partner pre-empted Jxxxx xx Jxx QJx then this might convince him not to do it again

And what if he opened 2S on

AQJxxx
x
Qxx
xxx

?

It depends a bit on what you think a minimum and maximum 2S bid looks like, but I think I have an invite, in whatever methods I play.

I agree it's closer to an Invite, but giving them less room to find the 5♦ sac if partner is max is kinda important IMO.

[mikestar]

4♠ over X is a good tactical bid. I would invite over a pass. Direct game bids on good invites are often winners in competition as there is an extra way to win: if they sacrifice, it may be a phantom.

[Phil]

4♠ is certainly reasonable, but if you knew the opponents were going to bid 5♦ would you be happy? As Frances points out, 4♠ is somewhat dependent on partner's club length, however, even if we invite, AQJ/red Q isn't enough for game if pard has ♣xxx. You are certainly getting a club lead unless RHO decides to genius an underlead of a red suit ace, so we are a long way from 10 tricks. On the other hand, if pard has a stiff club, 5♠ looks likely.

If we are playing some version of McCabe where 2N can ask for shortness, thats my call.

Not playing McCabe, I kind of like a pass here. I might discover if my opponents have clubs which makes bidding 4♠ a lot more appetizing.

They'll be a lot of 4♠, wtp, certainly, but i think the problem is deeper than that.

[rogerclee]

Phil, on Feb 18 2009, 08:42 AM, said:

4♠ is certainly reasonable, but if you knew the opponents were going to bid 5♦ would you be happy? As Frances points out, 4♠ is somewhat dependent on partner's club length, however, even if we invite, AQJ/red Q isn't enough for game if pard has ♣xxx. You are certainly getting a club lead unless RHO decides to genius an underlead of a red suit ace, so we are a long way from 10 tricks. On the other hand, if pard has a stiff club, 5♠ looks likely.

If we are playing some version of McCabe where 2N can ask for shortness, thats my call.

Not playing McCabe, I kind of like a pass here. I might discover if my opponents have clubs which makes bidding 4♠ a lot more appetizing.

They'll be a lot of 4♠, wtp, certainly, but i think the problem is deeper than that.

I would be happy to double 5♦.

Yes it is dependent on partner's club length, but I don't see why we are assuming that he has club length with no honor. The king makes 4♠ a great contract (though I suppose it is not really relevant, since partner would probably accept any game try, unless you mastermind a pass and miss game opposite AQxxxx xxx x Kxx), but even the queen can be really useful here so that the doubler can never attack clubs, and the jack works well for this purpose too, or maybe the opening leader just doesn't have a club lead, especially if we don't allow them to bid clubs! On top of this game is probably very good opposite a 7-card spade suit, which is pretty common for a r/w 2♠ bid.

It just comes down to the fact that partner has 0-2 clubs slightly more often than 3-4 clubs (but one of the more mathy people on this board can double-check this and tell me I am wrong), and if partner has 3-4 clubs game can still be very good, while if partner has 0-2 clubs you almost certainly want to be there. Since we have no shape ask available, and I don't think it is intelligent to see if the opponents bid clubs since they will usually just bid some number of diamonds which is inconclusive to us or bid Lebensohl which doesn't give us any information but allows them to bid more effectively, we should just make the most likely bid that will work, which is 4♠. Maybe in England this is only worth an invite, I don't know what an English r/w 2♠ bid looks like. However since we have already established that what we are really interested in is the shape, not the quality of hand, I don't think inviting is very logical here unless partner has such a tendency to have a terrible hand that we need to ask about it.

Also it is not unusual for me to think about a bidding or play problem for a very long time before giving a one-line response. Sorry that I don't usually type out my entire thought process, but anyway I disagree that this problem is "deep".

[jdonn]

I consider this a game force vul and a game invitation not vul. The double on my right does little to change things, since the likelihood my partner is a little weaker when an opponent shows strength is offset by my well placed kings.

[neilkaz]

jdonn, on Feb 18 2009, 10:24 AM, said:

I consider this a game force vul and a game invitation not vul. The double on my right does little to change things, since the likelihood my partner is a little weaker when an opponent shows strength is offset by my well placed kings.

Agreed and I'll bid 4♠ and if the opps sac in 5 lets hope they go off 4

[oldman5757]

even frisky P's should be somewhat disciplined R v. W. must bid 4♠

[skjaeran]

4♠ with my regular and recent partners, expecting to make. Unless I find partner with ♣xxx.

[mikeh]

I bid 4♠ because I can't think of a way to involve partner in a way that causes us to bid only good games and stay low opposite the hand Frances posted, and others on which game is poor.

I admit that, at the table, I tend to think 'glass half empty', but somehow my scores are better when I don't. I think an invite here is a glass half empty approach.

Even if we had a way to ask about shortness, knowing that partner had or didn't have a stiff club, for example, won't tell us enough about the hand to permit an informed decision.

[pirate22]

weak 2's---they are getting more and more abused--- on the hand described if vuln its up to a strength- bid 4 spades--(if u think its the frisky Jxxxxx job bid 3sp/3n/t)------non vuln anything goes esp if opps vuln
with the AQJxxx and shape if vuln 2 spades--if non vuln open 1 spade-do not open 2 spades-walk the dog in a way u have 7 losers, with the Jxxxxx and a bit of shape non vuln v vuln open 2 spades --there is a big differance when we are vuln as opposed to non vuln regards