[kfay]

w/w

K AK AJ109xx J10xx

Partner opens:

1♠-2♦
2♠-?

2♠ says absolutely nothing 1♠ didn't already say.

2♦ is 100% GF

[Hanoi5]

3♣, wtp?

[bluecalm]

Quote

3♣, wtp?

The problem is that you may miss ♦ slam in sequence:

1♠ - 2♦
2♠ - 3♣
3♠ (most likely) and now there will be some confusion about meaning of 4♦ bid.

I bid 3♦ with OP hand if that's forcing.

[jjbrr]

3♣ wtp

[gnasher]

3♦. I don't want to play in clubs, I don't have high cards in clubs, and I don't want partner to devalue club shortage or upgrade club honours.

[gszeszycki]

given the contstraints of your bidding system i would bid 3d However if I can add some flexibility it would be to allow opener to bid 2h w/o promising extra values. The failure to bid 2h by opener would now give YOU the opportunity to bid 3h to show concerns about nt due to club weakness----this would allow partner to properly evaluate any club shortness

[Fluffy]

I will try 2NT and see if partner bids clubs himself or even raises diamonds

[kfay]

Fluffy, on May 14 2010, 05:30 PM, said:

I will try 2NT and see if partner bids clubs himself or even raises diamonds

Personally, I'm a fan of this bid.

[mikeh]

Frankly, my immediate reaction was a '2N, wtp', and I was pleased to see it chosen by Gonzalo, all the more so because we rarely choose the same call.

Since for me, and I assume for the OP, given the description of 2♠, a 3♣ rebid by opener would have shown extras, we cannot yet rule out a hand such as AQxxx xx x AQxxx or even slightly better, so we need to cater to our club fit.

We also need to cater to AQxxx xx Kxx Axx, since I assume that an immediate raise would show 4+ support or some extras, and even if that is wrong, he surely won't raise immediately with say AQJxxx xx Kxx Ax.

3♣ hideously overbids that suit.....since we have a gf hand and our main problems involve both level and strain...that is, we have slam interest...we should try to avoid suggesting, as a slam-suitable suit, J10xx.

3♦ is almost as bad...we have already suggested a suit of approximately this quality and length...and if we rebid diamonds and then make a slam move, he should expect either a better hand or a better suit and thus misevaluate. More importantly, 3♦ buries the club fit if we have one.

[peachy]

2NT. At least it gets some of my hand described (no 3-card spades, clubs and hearts stopped). 3D would be too indefinite a description and imply a more top heavy suit - not promise, mind you, but still. And 3C is just too bad for words.

[655321]

2NT wtp

[hanp]

Agree with 2NT.

[mikegill]

I will preface by saying I don't play this style (where 2♠ doesn't show anything), so you can feel free to take my opinion with a grain of salt.

My initial thought was 3♦. However, I'm not in love with this hand, especially for slam. While I'm a big fan of AJT9, it's really not a very good holding for slam purposes, unless we're intending to bid grand on a 5-or-7 hand. We almost need partner to hold a singleton club, or multiple club honors/length in addition to multiple other keycards for slam to be even decent. I'm going to go with 2NT. If partner can't do anything other than raise to 3NT over this, I don't even think I'm worth a 4N call. I'm finding it hard to construct a balanced <15 HCP hand where slam is great and partner wouldn't do something other than 3NT over 2NT. Maybe Axxxx xxx KQx Ax? Maybe he should bid 3♦ over 2NT with that? Again I don't really play this style so I'm not sure.

[jdonn]

Yes 2NT. I particularly don't like 3♣ since our clubs are bad, it's not quite as cheap, and we will never convince partner hearts are this well stopped. Let's find out more about partner's shape.

[bluecalm]

Yeah, you guys are right. I now believe 2NT is much better than 3♦.

[Winstonm]

Agree with 2N

[Jlall]

omg this is the easiest 32N bid ive ever seen

[matmat]

Jlall, on May 16 2010, 01:27 AM, said:

omg this is the easiest 32N bid ive ever seen

I don't fancy myself taking 38 tricks in NT.

[Fluffy]

as long as the opponents don't make -25 tricks you should be ok

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on May 14 2010, 11:20 PM, said:

I was pleased to see it chosen by Gonzalo, all the more so because we rarely choose the same call.

we do, just that I don't post it when you already said so