[the_dude]

Playing 2/1 with some gimmicks, do you have a sensible auction to get to a diamond slam? How about if you are playing Kokish/2C?

xxx
x
Axxxxx
A10x

AKx
AQ10xxx
KQ
Kx

Thanks

[kenrexford]

2C-P-3D

[billw55]

kenrexford, on 2014-July-18, 05:13, said:

2C-P-3D

Probably works, but I would open 1♥, likely stopping in game.

Are we sure we want to be in this slam?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

kenrexford, on 2014-July-18, 05:13, said:

2C-P-3D

To me, 3D should promise 5+ cards and 2 of the top 3 .

[the_dude]

kenrexford, on 2014-July-18, 05:13, said:

2C-P-3D

What are your suit quality requirements for this bid. I thought Axxxxx wasn't quite good enough - or is it dependent on the rest of the hand?

[kenrexford]

A positive response shows values (two Aces surely qualifies) with a good suit. A suit is good if good enough for a weak two, meaning two of the top three honors if a five-card suit. Ace sixth is good enough, especially when holding a second Ace.

[mikeh]

the_dude, on 2014-July-18, 08:45, said:

What are your suit quality requirements for this bid. I thought Axxxxx wasn't quite good enough - or is it dependent on the rest of the hand?

Bear in mind that some posters may tailor their bidding theories to cater to the hand known to exist

In addition, my own views are that the North hand has too much potential in spades and clubs, and far too much slam potential opposite a 2N rebid by opener, to pre-empt the auction via 3♦. My preference is to reserve 3m responses for very one-dimensional hands with limited values....2 of the top 3, and if they are KQ, then a side K or Q, but definitely no side A. Give me a KQxxx suit and a side Ace, and we are almost in a slam force opposite a 22-23 balanced hand.

Given that most experienced pairs have complex methods over strong 2N rebids by partner, and are generally just groping their way after, say, 2♣ 3♦ 3N, and basically starting slam exploration a level higher, my opinion is that 95% of responding hands to 2♣ will bid one of an immediate negative 2♥ (if that is in your tool box) and a positive, gf (or waiting, if you don't play immediate negatives) 2♦.

Note how hearing either a 2N or a 2♠ rebid will make you happy you stayed low, and even a 2♥ bid doesn't ruin your day, despite the fact that it may prove to be a kokish action.

Anyway, for me this is all moot. While I have, in recent years and partly as a result of reading these forums, lowered my 2♣ requirements, they haven't quite got this low.

I really think that the minor holdings are not worth as much as I suspect most 2♣ bidders feel them to be, and I really don't like not having at least the heart J. So I would open 1♥.

Now, if you need a 6 count to respond to 1♥, by all means open 2♣

[mikeh]

I should have said: I don't think I am getting to slam. Long ago stopped worrying about missing some borderline contracts, especially slams.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on 2014-July-18, 11:13, said:

Bear in mind that some posters may tailor their bidding theories to cater to the hand known to exist

In addition, my own views are that the North hand has too much potential in spades and clubs, and far too much slam potential opposite a 2N rebid by opener, to pre-empt the auction via 3♦. My preference is to reserve 3m responses for very one-dimensional hands with limited values....2 of the top 3, and if they are KQ, then a side K or Q, but definitely no side A. Give me a KQxxx suit and a side Ace, and we are almost in a slam force opposite a 22-23 balanced hand.

Given that most experienced pairs have complex methods over strong 2N rebids by partner, and are generally just groping their way after, say, 2♣ 3♦ 3N, and basically starting slam exploration a level higher, my opinion is that 95% of responding hands to 2♣ will bid one of an immediate negative 2♥ (if that is in your tool box) and a positive, gf (or waiting, if you don't play immediate negatives) 2♦.

Note how hearing either a 2N or a 2♠ rebid will make you happy you stayed low, and even a 2♥ bid doesn't ruin your day, despite the fact that it may prove to be a kokish action.

Anyway, for me this is all moot. While I have, in recent years and partly as a result of reading these forums, lowered my 2♣ requirements, they haven't quite got this low.

I really think that the minor holdings are not worth as much as I suspect most 2♣ bidders feel them to be, and I really don't like not having at least the heart J. So I would open 1♥.

Now, if you need a 6 count to respond to 1♥, by all means open 2♣

Sometimes, I swear you drive me nuts. Tailoring responses to the situation?!?!

It is fairly universal that the "standard" positive response shows sound values (8+ HCP -- this qualifies) plus a "good suit." The "definition" of a "good suit" is fairly universally HHxxx if a five-card suit, but lesser honor contributions if a 6+ suit. A couple of minutes checking various reliable sources available on the internet will establish this.

Thus, first of all, it seems rather unnecessary and rude to suggest catering when the call meets nearly exactly the accepted definition for a positive response simply because your style happens to be narrower.

You dislike 3♦ in part because of the preemption. The spade suit is not preempted, as Opener can easily bid 3♠, which you can raise. The diamond suit is only preempted if you do not bid 3♦, because few have a way to show a good hand with diamonds below 3NT.

If your point was to describe an alternative treatment, that's fine. Limited meanings for 3♦ are playable. But, your suggestion is that "bidding theories" have been tailored by me to a situation, in response to a question about what a positive response "shows." You are doing a disservice providing a pet treatment as if it were standard. The standard for a positive is 8+ HCP with a good suit, and a good suit means 2/3 top honors if 5-card, or a longer suit.

[mike777]

May miss slam:


2c=2d
2h=3d
3h=3nt?
p?

or

2c=2d
2h=3d
3h=4nt(quant not rkc)
?

[Cyberyeti]

This is an awkward hand, we wouldn't open 2♣ unless we were going to treat it as a 22-23 3523, so I suspect we'd start with 1♥ and miss it.

It's not a great slam but is OK, you are likely to be able to ruff the hearts good.

[billw55]

mikeh, on 2014-July-18, 11:13, said:

Anyway, for me this is all moot. While I have, in recent years and partly as a result of reading these forums, lowered my 2♣ requirements, they haven't quite got this low.

Strongly agree. Short suit honors and a long suit full of gaps. Conceivably, this hand might only take 6 tricks opposite a yarb. For sure 1♥ in my book.

[kenrexford]

As a related aside, I wonder if the time has come to have a puppet 3H rebid show 5 or 6 hearts, with 3S unwind.

[jdgalt]

I count 8 winners, plus one potential winner by finessing in hearts. I've got more brains than to WANT to get to slam.

[PhilKing]

This ain't a 2♣ opening. I like to open 2♣ pretty light, but I have a yardstick - game is basically cold opposite a perfecto 3334 with one king AND I have a bunch of high cards.

I would probably bid 1♥-1NT-3NT pass. For me 3NT show 19-21 bal with 6 hearts and responder will probably drop. Given that we have decent play for grand, the answer is that responder maybe should move - the two aces are huge. But I would need to do a sim to prove it.

[Cascade]

My sims, all double dummy, suggest that 4♥ is usually better than than 3NT (91% v 85%). 6♦ is great whenever partner has three diamonds (74%). 6♦ is ok when partner has two diamonds (44%).

Given that it seems right to pull to 4♦ and if partner makes encouraging noises drive to 6♦ otherwise hope to rest in 4♥, if that is natural (or maybe 4NT).