[jillybean]

---

IMP

[CSGibson]

2N - two places to play. If partner bids 3♦, I will correct to 3♥

[mgoetze]

If I were playing a natural 1♦ opening, as in T-Walsh or Polish Club, this would be an easy 3♥ bid. Now, as partner doesn't know what I have, I don't know what partner has, so 2NT may indeed be better. At least it's not matchpoints...

[jillybean]

If you bid 2N partner will bid 3♣

[MickyB]

mgoetze, on 2012-June-03, 15:21, said:

If I were playing a natural 1♦ opening, as in T-Walsh or Polish Club, this would be an easy 3♥ bid. Now, as partner doesn't know what I have, I don't know what partner has, so 2NT may indeed be better. At least it's not matchpoints...

Eh? That my 1D opening may have been 4-4-3-2 precisely is irrelevant, that hand is always correcting diamonds to hearts.

[Hanoi5]

3♥

[CSGibson]

jillybean, on 2012-June-03, 19:58, said:

If you bid 2N partner will bid 3♣

ok, we'll play 3♣

[jillybean]

---

How do we bid this?

[mgoetze]

3♠.

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2012-June-04, 00:17, said:

How do we bid this?

Well, you can't bid a passable 3C. You need to throw in a cuebid at some point to force to game, and now seems as good a time as any. If partner bids 3NT, you can continue with 4C to offer a choice of slams. Partner should get the idea that you only have 4 of them, and bid NT with only 3.

If partner doesn't bid 3NT, then they will choose a suit like X asked for. If it's 4C, you know you have an 8 card fit (which sounds likely anyway). Getting to slam isn't much harder than just bidding it at this point.

[Codo]

I honestly have no way to find 6 clubs after partner bid 2 NT.
After a more pedestrian 3 club, I had found it easily.

This does not make 2 NT the worse bid in the situation you gave, just the successless one.

[lowerline]

jillybean, on 2012-June-04, 00:17, said:

---

How do we bid this?

I don't understand 2nt. It is clearly not natural... I bid 6nt now as I don't know how to uncover the club fit.

Steven

[sfi]

lowerline, on 2012-June-04, 06:01, said:

I don't understand 2nt. It is clearly not natural... I bid 6nt now as I don't know how to uncover the club fit.

Looking at the hand, 2NT is surely showing both minors.

[billw55]

Would've been a good time for a support double over 2♠. If I don't have that agreement, I probably don't have one about 2NT either, so I am not sure what to do. Perhaps I would settle on mgoetze's 3♠, or maybe just an unimaginative 3♣.

[han]

I like 5NT pick a slam with that hand.

[jillybean]

This was a hand sent to me by a friend, they ended up in a 6♥ contract -3. The club slam is the best spot but I think it is very difficult to bid.

[mgoetze]

6♣ is obviously the best contract if you know nothing about the opponents' hands. Is it still the best given the 2♠ bid, or is 6NT now better? (Also, the 2♠ bid surely increases the chances of 7♣ too, doesn't it?)

[jillybean]

FWIW you can pitch your ♠ on the ♥ but 7♣ looses on the diamond finesse, but getting to 6 (or7) is the problem.

[lowerline]

sfi, on 2012-June-04, 06:10, said:

Looking at the hand, 2NT is surely showing both minors.

Then it's easy to bid 6♣... So I guess the meaning is something less helpful.

Steven

[mgoetze]

jillybean, on 2012-June-04, 09:12, said:

FWIW you can pitch your ♠ on the ♥ but 7♣ looses on the diamond finesse, but getting to 6 (or7) is the problem.

You can take the diamond finesse either way of course. But my question was really: are the odds of getting the diamond finesse right high enough to bid grand, given that one of the suits is "known" to break 3-6?