[rduran1216]

---

Now what?

[Cascade]

3♣ I need more information and the way to get that is to keep the bidding low. There is only a very small risk that this will end the auction.

[JLOGIC]

4C and play some bridge!

[Fluffy]

6♣ has some merit, we don't have a way to discover what partner has, but chaces are he has 1 of the 2 missing aces, or ♠A and they mislead. Bidding slowly doesn't really seem to help our side but it will help theirs

[whereagles]

4♣ seems like an underbid.... but 4♠ is likely to give pard an headache. I'll just go with a practical 5♣, willing to give up on slam.

[mikeh]

3♣ is too little

5♣ too much, tho not in the sense of getting us too high...more in the sense of consuming all of our bidding space

A cuebid of anything is too confusing, and creates problems on the next round when neither of us will know what the other meant.

4♣ seems just right.

While my view is that this is forcing, I really don't care too much.....if partner thinks it is merely highky encouraging, and passes, we haven't missed game yet. Jxx xx KQxx Jxxx needs some luck.

[whereagles]

That's just about the lousiest hand pard can have, mike

[Phil]

Since 4♣ is forcing, I fail to see how it is an underbid.

I don't know if I can reach slam with certainty, or how I can avoid a slam when its wrong, but this seems like a good start.

[ArtK78]

4♣ is descriptive and forcing, so I don't see how it can be the wrong choice, whether it turns out to be the winning call or not.

[rduran1216]

i wasnt sure if any club bid i could make was forcing so i decided to bid 3H and follow with a club bid, which gave my p the impression i was willing to play in 6H opposite a stiff. I'm not sure absent an agreement that 4C is forcing since p has bid clubs already. I think 6C in this spot has alot of merit.

[wank]

rduran1216, on 2011-January-05, 18:09, said:

i wasnt sure if any club bid i could make was forcing so i decided to bid 3H and follow with a club bid, which gave my p the impression i was willing to play in 6H opposite a stiff. I'm not sure absent an agreement that 4C is forcing since p has bid clubs already. I think 6C in this spot has alot of merit.

pmsl. you couldn't think of any forcing club bids so you made a non-forcing heart bid?

[gszeszycki]

this hand has become so powerful any number of clubs will fail to do it justice. I would like my chances on 6c if p had as little as xxx Ax xxxx xxxx and p is better than that we
just dont know where their power is. Another problem with bidding clubs is we are looking at AKQ which means p is not so getting them to cooperate with slam tries will be
difficult at best. I suggest we take the slow route and begin by bidding a mere

2s and see where that leads us. The key here is do not waste precious bidding space.
Who knows p might even have a heart fit they want to show us:))

[rduran1216]

wank, on 2011-January-05, 18:12, said:

pmsl. you couldn't think of any forcing club bids so you made a non-forcing heart bid?

3H seemed more forcing than 4C in this auction

it seems like this should follow the same logic as 1D 1H 3H

No 3H isn't forcing, its just a strong holding inviting to game. Seems like any denomiation of clubs is giving partner info and suggesting the proper level.

[Free]

4♣ is pretty much the strongest bid we have, so wtp?

[nige1]

rduran1216, on 2011-January-04, 23:22, said:

Now what?

---

IMO 4♣ = 10, 3♦ = 9, 2♠ = 8, 3♠ = 7, 6♣ = 6, 3♣ = 5.

[gnasher]

I don't see why 4♣ should be forcing. Partner's double more or less promises 4-4 in the minors, so I think any number of clubs is a limit bid, in the same way that 1♦ (1♠) dbl (pass) 3♥ is a limit bid.

I have an easy way to make a forcing bid in clubs and show my hand at the same time - 3♠. That's obviously a splinter for clubs.

[kayin801]

2♠ followed by 4♣ or 5♣, whichever is available. I'm trying to envision what hands the opponents would have to jump to 5♦ before we get another turn and I don't think the likelihood is high. More often they'll get to 4♠. If I were confident that 3♠ were a club splinter like gnasher said I would bid that but I have woefully underdiscussed this auction.

[mikeh]

Does anyone play any version of good/bad or bad/good 2N here?

If so, that would assist, since we would now have 3 ways to show (or imply) clubs below game, in addition to what I respectfully say is the not-so-obvious splinter of 3♠. It may be obvious to Andy but the fact that it garnered so little support here suggests that it is far from obvious to the majority of players. Which makes it a dangerous choice. What would we do with x AKQ10xxx Ax Kxx, assuming we opened 1♥? I'm not saying I'd bid 3♠, but whether I ended up doing so or not, I suspect 3♠ would garner at least some support in a bidding contest.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on 2011-January-06, 11:07, said:

Does anyone play any version of good/bad or bad/good 2N here?

I do. The 2NT here would be either a max or min (med hands bid directly), so wouldn't be of much use because it's rather nebulous.

[Phil]

mikeh, on 2011-January-06, 11:07, said:

Does anyone play any version of good/bad or bad/good 2N here?

If so, that would assist, since we would now have 3 ways to show (or imply) clubs below game, in addition to what I respectfully say is the not-so-obvious splinter of 3♠. It may be obvious to Andy but the fact that it garnered so little support here suggests that it is far from obvious to the majority of players. Which makes it a dangerous choice. What would we do with x AKQ10xxx Ax Kxx, assuming we opened 1♥? I'm not saying I'd bid 3♠, but whether I ended up doing so or not, I suspect 3♠ would garner at least some support in a bidding contest.

Yep - which is why 4♣ is forcing. There's no need for a minimum 3♣, a good 3♣ call and a dynamite hand with clubs, that just....isn't....quite...forcing either.