[ArtK78]

Scoring: XIMP

1♥ - (P) - 2♦ - (P)
2NT - (P) - ?

---

My partner, a very experienced player, made what I thought was an odd call the other night in an IMP pair game.

With this hand, first, he made a 2/1 (which is not game forcing if he rebids his suit) and then leapt to 5♣ over 2NT. I dug a deeper hole for us when I decided that 5♣ could not be natural (the only interpretation that made some sense to me was exclusion RKCB for hearts), since he could have bid 3♣ and then 4♣ or 5♣. He said his 5♣ was intended as "fast arrival."

Any comments?

[EricK]

It would never occur to me that 5♣ could be anything other as natural. Whether it is the correct bid on his hand is another matter of course.

Your point about his having other ways to get to ♣ holds equally well for ♥, so there is no reason to think that this need be some sort of obscure support for your first suit.

[ArtK78]

First, I apologize. I had my partner's hand wrong. It is a little better, but not much:

Scoring: XIMP

---

Second, there is no way to bid exclusion RKCB without a jump. So, if partner has an exclusion RKCB bid, he cannot support hearts and then jump later - there won't be any room left.

Admittedly, if he had an exclusion RKCB type hand, he probably would not have bid 2♦ over 1♥. But there is no sure way to create a game forcing situation with hearts agreed where 5♣ will be a jump on his second turn to bid.

I do not see the need for a jump to 5♣ as natural. It seems to me that one can bid 3♣ over 2NT and bid 5♣ later.

It didn't make too much of a difference on the hand. I took another bid over 5♣ so we wound up in 6♣ down 3 instead of 5♣ down 2.

[jdonn]

Well neither exclusion nor natural makes any sense really, since he would start with 2NT if he wants to bid exclusion (I realize partner might cross you and bid 4♥ next.) Surely natural makes the least sense of the two, but I think it's obvious to take it as natural with a pickup partner of pretty much any skill level. If they meant it as anything else I will think they got what they deserve.

And yes 5♣ was a terrible bid.

[helene_t]

I don't think 5♣ was such a terrible bid. The terrible bid was 2♦. After that there was no way back, and 5♣ was not worse than any alternative IMHO.

[benlessard]

I play 5C as exclusion for D. Something like Axxx Kx AKxxxxx void.
I don't play fast arrival in a new suit .

[glen]

Jlall, on Dec 22 2007, 01:20 PM, said:

get a new partner

hope this is fast arrival

[Fluffy]

I don't play that exclusion thing, but if 5♣ is a slam going the fit is surelly diamonds.

and 5♣ is a better bid than 2♦ that's for sure.

[hotShot]

RHO passed twice, LHO passed in the first round and we have already reached 2NT.
Why on earth should one rush?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would say, that it is a matter of partnership
agreement, if 5C is natural or not, although
I would say, the bid does not exist, and your
paartner has a hand, which does make a look
for 6C / 6D reaasonable, and 7 may be on,
at least, if 2NT is 15-17, or 12-14 / +18.

So he should simply bid 3C, followed by 4C.

If 2NT is 12-14, I can understand a natural 5C.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Of course, he felt, that 2D was an overbid,
and he was right, but having made the bid, he
should see it through and not jump around.