[lycier]

---

Now,how to describe this hand properly?

[P_Marlowe]

2S is usually only a 1 round force, making a raise to 3S non forcing.

It is either 3C (planning to bid 4S the next round) or 4S, 3C is more
flexible, and will tell you, if partner has wastage in clubs, hence 3C.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Codo]

Whatever forcing raise I have, for most this is 3 ♣, for me it would be 2 NT. This hand is far too strong for a direct raise.

[MrAce]

4♠

Since 2♠ is f1 only, 3♠ is not forcing so it is out of question because we want to be in game vs pds minimum 2♠ response. It is a choice between 4♠ or slamming bids, cues or whatever. I would go with 4♠ because if i was minimum i would bid 3♠, pd knows i have extras but not good enough to make a big bid. After all we may be playing only on a 5-3 fit and slam ambition may get us to 5 level which is hard to tell how safe it will be.

Note: It would be much more enjoyable topic if you did not show North hand and show it at the end, imo. But regardless i think this is a good hand to post.

[kenberg]

I would rephrases the question as What is the strength expected from 2♠? I can tell you that I have played with many partners with no such discussion. We get as far as saying that it is forcing (I have played negative free bids but all in all I prefer not to) but not game forcing, but that's usually it. I see the logic as something like this: 2♠ forces to either 2NT or the three level, so it ought to be of sufficient strength that we will have a play for our contract at that level when no great fit exists. If we can plany at the three level when no fit exists, we ought to be able to play at the four level when there is a fit. So raising 2♠ to 3♠ should be forcing. But it is a serious error to assume partner thinks the same way as I do if we have not discussed it. I really do not want to bid 3♠ and have partner pass. So I bid 4♠ and make a note to discuss with partner whether 3♠ is forcing. As with so many things, the only really bad way to play it is to play it as undiscussed.

[Fluffy]

south has a clear splinter IMO, I can't conceive 4♥ as natural so it must be splinter.

[Codo]

I hate splinters with aces...

[lalldonn]

I think we have way too much potential for 4♠. If partner had a stiff club he wouldn't need the king of hearts and maybe not the queen of diamonds either for slam to be good.

Or to think of it another way, I would bid 4♠ if my ace of hearts was a small one without giving it a second thought.

[aguahombre]

kenberg, on 2012-December-31, 07:31, said:

I would rephrases the question as What is the strength expected from 2♠? I can tell you that I have played with many partners with no such discussion. We get as far as saying that it is forcing (I have played negative free bids but all in all I prefer not to) but not game forcing, but that's usually it. I see the logic as something like this: 2♠ forces to either 2NT or the three level, so it ought to be of sufficient strength that we will have a play for our contract at that level when no great fit exists. If we can plany at the three level when no fit exists, we ought to be able to play at the four level when there is a fit. So raising 2♠ to 3♠ should be forcing. But it is a serious error to assume partner thinks the same way as I do if we have not discussed it. I really do not want to bid 3♠ and have partner pass. So I bid 4♠ and make a note to discuss with partner whether 3♠ is forcing. As with so many things, the only really bad way to play it is to play it as undiscussed.

Yes, on all points. Someday you might have a new experience, however ---playing with a partner who believes 2S itself should be game-forcing.

[ggwhiz]

3♣ in my partnership would be followed by 4♠ from partner.

If they did have a stiff club I would probably get a forward going move like 3♦ (that Q is a huge card) but 4♠ shuts us down.