[Hanoi5]

You hold:

♠Jx
♥Axx
♦xx
♣QJTxxx

1♠-1NT
2♥-???

What do you think of:

Pass
2♠
2NT
3♣

Does Vulnerability matter? Does ir matter if it is IMP's or MP's?

[jillybean]

Pass and 2♠ are ok, I would not bid 2N or 3♣

[Phil]

2♠ is OK; pass is not.

[dake50]

Wasn't this hand a 3C first response?


Edit: Or whatever bid shows middling/invite long clubs.
Sorry, I didn't assume Bergen.

[Hanoi5]

dake50, on 2010-December-21, 20:40, said:

Wasn't this hand a 3C first response?

Nope. 3♣ would show 4-card support and 7-9 hcp.

[nigel_k]

I'd bid 3♣, second choice is 2♠ but it's not particularly close. Dislike pass and 2NT is even worse. Vul/scoring don't make a difference.

[mike777]

Phil, on 2010-December-21, 20:35, said:

2♠ is OK; pass is not.

ditto

[mtvesuvius]

2♠ is pretty standard I think

[inquiry]

You can't pass. Partner might still have enough to bid game -- or at least invite, which you would accept -- if you bid a discouraging 2♠

Two SPADES should be automatic. No other choices unless you are behind in team match an REALLY, REALLY need to create some action.

[WellSpyder]

I play a forcing NT in a Precision context, where the 1♠ opening bid is limited to 15 points. In that context you can certainly pass. You could also bid 2♠ or 3♣. 2NT seems definitely wrong, though.

[hatchett]

2♠ is very clear.

[fromageGB]

It's got to depend on your agreements. Lacking any to the contrary, I will assume that 2♥ is limited to a 15 max, so for me pass is certainly an option.

Pass - OK, not the best
2♠ - my preference
2NT - No way ! Not close to the expected 10+ count.
3C - no. On a 6 card club suit I would only do it in this sequence if I was 1246 shape.

[Fluffy]

2NT is ridicoulous, pass is very poor, others are close, would bid 2♠ at MPs to be able to get 140, at IMPs 3♣ is sounder, althou I will regret if partner passes 3♣ with a 5521 that would be worth 3♥ over 2♠.

[mfa1010]

Routine 2♠. I'm pretty sure that 2♠ will play quite a lot better than 3♣ in the long run.

[mikeh]

2♠.

If he is weak 5-5 then 2♥ was best, and on some hands 3♣ will work.

However, when he is weak 5=4, 2♠ will more often be better than 2♥ than vice versa, and the real payoff comes when he is a maximum, and can bid again. Consider something along the lines of a strong 5-5 near jumpshift territory. Now both pass and 3♣ are going to be big losers....you'll be happy to raise 3♥ to game.

To me, the key is that we have two working cards in his suits, and in particular the heart Ace is too big a card for me to insist on playing 3♣ or to risk playing 2♥.

[Phil]

Something for the non-2♠ bidders to understand is that 2♠ does not force us to spade contracts. Partner may rebid hearts, or may pattern out with 3♣, and now our hand becomes very valuable. Over 2N I think I'll bid 3♣. This should warn partner about 3N if he holds Hx of diamonds, and may help him evaluate (or pass).

[nige1]

Hanoi5, on 2010-December-21, 20:29, said:

You hold: ♠ Jx ♥ Axx ♦ xx ♣ QJTxxx
1♠-1NT
2♥-???
What do you think of: Pass 2♠ 2NT 3♣
Does Vulnerability matter? Does ir matter if it is IMP's or MP's?

2♠ = 10, _P = 7, 3♣ = 6, 2N = 2.

[ewleongusa]

Hanoi5, on 2010-December-21, 20:29, said:

You hold:

♠Jx
♥Axx
♦xx
♣QJTxxx

1♠-1NT
2♥-???

What do you think of:

Pass
2♠
2NT
3♣

Does Vulnerability matter? Does ir matter if it is IMP's or MP's?

Why wouldn't you bid the straight forward 3C? You do have six decent clubs which is what your bid says and you keep the bidding open is case partner has a good hand that is not strong enough to make a forcing jump shift.

Eric Leong

[hatchett]

ewleongusa, on 2010-December-22, 12:11, said:

Why wouldn't you bid the straight forward 3C? You do have six decent clubs which is what your bid says and you keep the bidding open is case partner has a good hand that is not strong enough to make a forcing jump shift.

Eric Leong

I don't think 3♣ is terrible but you have two decent cards in partner's suits and 3♣ is a level higher. hence 2♠.

[nigel_k]

hatchett, on 2010-December-22, 18:53, said:

I don't think 3♣ is terrible but you have two decent cards in partner's suits and 3♣ is a level higher. hence 2♠.

Which is more likely: clubs plays two tricks better than spades or clubs plays zero tricks better? I'd say two tricks better is more likely and feel reasonably confident about that. One trick better only matters when it is 140 vs 130 and then only at matchpoints.

Some of the previous posters have said things that suggest partner is more likely to bid over 2♠ than over 3♣ on the hands that make game. If that is true then it might be an argument for 2♠. But 3♣ rates to be a better final contract.