[paulg]

---

IMPs.

Your two spades opener shows five spades, 4+ minor and 5-9 (bad 10) points. WTP?

[whereagles]

Pard is in charge here, with respect to suit and level. You must pass and the only reason this came up here is that a slam makes But that's fortuitous.

[gwnn]

5♥, this hand is really really really good. Yes partner is charge here but this is the absolute best hand for him. I think 4♥ should not be an absolute signoff.

(I am assuming here that 3♥ would have been NF)

[whereagles]

gwnn, on 2012-February-06, 08:32, said:

(I am assuming here that 3♥ would have been NF)

Why should it? New suit at the 3-level seems pretty much GF to me...

[gwnn]

Because we are in competition.

Anyway, at least in the NL they even play 2♠-p-3♥ as NF (but encouraging opener to raise if he/she is suitable). I won't say standard because I don't have so many data points, but I know a sizable amount of people play it that way.

[gnasher]

This is such a good hand that I think it's worth a move. 4♠ seems sensible if I can be sure that partner will take it as a cue-bid.

[JLOGIC]

4S as a cuebid, good luck with that one Andy!

I would just pass but I understand bidding.

[Phil]

Agree with JL. 4♠ as a cue makes perfect sense in the bar after the game.

I would bid 5♥. Seems perfect really.

[paulg]

whereagles, on 2012-February-06, 08:27, said:

Pard is in charge here, with respect to suit and level. You must pass and the only reason this came up here is that a slam makes But that's fortuitous.

Good guess but slam did not actually make.

Actually a friend asked me about the hand because, in real life, the 2♠ opener had alerted 4♥ as a splinter and then bid 4♠. My friend wondered what options were available: must this be a systemic forget (when pass was likely to work out best) or did hands exist where 4♠ might be a cue bid (systemically 4♥ was natural, but West forgot).

I think I've established that there is a set of players for which this is a cue bid. And a set of players who would never dream of doing it and so it is probably a system forget.

Thanks.

[wank]

i'd prefer just to shoot myself and get it over with without needing to get the director involved if i thought this was a 2♠ opener in these methods

[Zelandakh]

gwnn, on 2012-February-06, 08:38, said:

Anyway, at least in the NL they even play 2♠-p-3♥ as NF (but encouraging opener to raise if he/she is suitable).

Or you can just play that 2♠ - 3♦ shows this hand or better in hearts. If you have a hand with diamonds you surely want to ask partner which minor they have - you can happily bid 3♦ over partner's 3♣ rebid anyway.

[gwnn]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-07, 06:25, said:

Or you can just play that 2♠ - 3♦ shows this hand or better in hearts. If you have a hand with diamonds you surely want to ask partner which minor they have - you can happily bid 3♦ over partner's 3♣ rebid anyway.

Well in the structure I referred to it was:

2♠-

2NT: strong relay, GF (opener may bid 3H/3S to show a max or a 55 or something - depends on agreement)
3♣: p/c
3♦: invitational in spades
3♥: NF in hearts

[Zelandakh]

gwnn, on 2012-February-07, 06:30, said:

Well in the structure I referred to it was:

2♠-

2NT: strong relay, GF (opener may bid 3H/3S to show a max or a 55 or something - depends on agreement)
3♣: p/c
3♦: invitational in spades
3♥: NF in hearts

This is what I play but with the 3♦ and 3♥ responses reversed and where 3♥ is a good raise and can contain slam hands as well as a simple game invite. It surely makes more sense this way round since you do not really need the extra step after the spade raise but it is very useful with hearts. By taking the GF heart hands out of 2NT you can also handle the slammy minor 1-suiters more easily: 2♠ - 2NT; 3♦ - 3♥ can now show clubs.

[gwnn]

oh yea - of course you are right. I need some more coffee.

[MrAce]

I'd pass, i gave up finding excuses to make a slam move after i preempted and pd bid game long time ago. It never worked good for me.

[HighLow21]

Yeah I tend to agree--> you could bid again, but it's possible partner has Kx♣ and is going to be unhappy to see the K♣ ruffed. Nothing stinks more than to investigate slam, stop at the 5 level, and go down one trick.

Besides, the K♠ could be completely worthless to your partner. As could the diamond singleton. Overall, I just don't think it makes sense to disturb partner's game when it seems just as likely to me that 5♥ will fail as it is that 6♥ will succeed.

Note that if you had Axxxx♠ KQ10♥, 7♦ 9876♣, that is an entirely different issue: partner bid game in competition knowing he had 3 holes at the top of the trump suit. He had no reason to believe you could necessarily fill any of them. Every high card is guaranteed to be working and you have a nice distributional surprise to boot.

[Statto]

Partner might have thought our minor was ♦, and have wasted values there. I pass.

[the hog]

Pass. I do not understand biding on, and suspect that those who do are perhaps not used to playing these 2 suited methods. 3H should be forcing, of course as Whereagles states.

[AyunuS]

I would pass. I don't like the wasted cards in clubs that you'd need to get rid of most, if not all of in order to make a slam. If your minor were diamonds it'd be a lot more worth investigating.