[mikl_plkcc]

---

---

Small slams were possible on both but we couldn't find them. How can I bid them?

[pescetom]

#7 you have to be kidding.

#8 I strongly dislike the 3NT response, but North should still proceed in some way (maybe 4NT is RKCB in hearts, or whatever).
With a human partner I would bid a 2♣ game force and then we can hardly miss 6♠. But this can backfire with a robot as it may stubbornly play you for 5 card clubs.

[jillybean]

1. I don't think you can
2. Go slow, 2♣ generic gf. 1S would get you there too but I'm not sure if it's not the right bid.
I won't play this 3nt jump to show this hand, you've lost all your bidding room and told partner very little.

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2025-July-15, 08:39, said:

1. I don't think you can
2. Go slow, 2♣ generic gf. 1S would get you there too but I'm not sure if it's not the right bid.
I won't play this 3nt jump to show this hand, you've lost all your bidding room and told partner very little.

1. not only can you not bid it, you shouldn't bid it. More interesting problem if you make the Q♣ the K

2. Deny 4M with 3N, so 3334/3343, now you can bid 1♠ and it's easy

[mikl_plkcc]

pescetom, on 2025-July-15, 08:37, said:

#7 you have to be kidding.

#8 I strongly dislike the 3NT response, but North should still proceed in some way (maybe 4NT is RKCB in hearts, or whatever).
With a human partner I would bid a 2♣ game force and then we can hardly miss 6♠. But this can backfire with a robot as it may stubbornly play you for 5 card clubs.

Doesn't 2♣ promise 4 ♣ and denies a longer suit biddable at the 1-level?

[Cyberyeti]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-July-15, 10:25, said:

Doesn't 2♣ promise 4 ♣ and denies a longer suit biddable at the 1-level?

If you play 2/1 GF, 2♣ is commonly used as a general game force, sometimes bypassing a 4 card spade suit

[mike777]

 mikl_plkcc, on 2025-July-15, 10:25, said:

Doesn't 2♣ promise 4 ♣ and denies a longer suit biddable at the 1-level?

It should deny a longer suit, yes
Don't by pass 4 spades to bid a 3 card club suit,

Whatever you play you need to be able to get to slam on bd 8.

[akwoo]

On the first board, you should not be in slam. The odds of slam are less than 50%, as it requires the club finesse as well as not horrible breaks. It's important that you learn to see this for yourself.

On the second board, with a human I trusted, the bidding would go 1H-1S-4C-4N-5N-6S. (4C is a splinter - yes with a 5 loser hand you should force game. 5N shows 2 with a void, presumably in clubs.) The robot doesn't understand how to value distribution, so I doubt you'd be able to get this auction with a robot.

[jillybean]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-July-15, 10:25, said:

Doesn't 2♣ promise 4 ♣ and denies a longer suit biddable at the 1-level?

mike777, on 2025-July-15, 11:05, said:

It should deny a longer suit, yesDon't by pass 4 spades to bid a 3 card club suit,Whatever you play you need to be able to get to slam on bd 8.

I like to play 2♣ gf, could be as short as 2. I would like to play 2♣ gf could be as short as 0 but I'm only half the partnership.
Holding 42xx I would bid 1♠, if I have a 3 card gf raise, I start 2♣

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-July-15, 10:35, said:

If you play 2/1 GF, 2♣ is commonly used as a general game force, sometimes bypassing a 4 card spade suit

In Italy and I think most of Europe, it bypasses either major suit with fit in opener's major, does not promise any clubs at all (yet).
Easy enough to sort out with a minimum of natural logic.
One of many useful corollaries is that 2♦ 2/1 is 5+ cards, without exceptions.

[mike777]

jillybean, on 2025-July-15, 13:50, said:

I like to play 2♣ gf, could be as short as 2. I would like to play 2♣ gf could be as short as 0 but I'm only half the partnership.
Holding 42xx I would bid 1♠, if I have a 3 card gf raise, I start 2♣

I think there are two issues here, just to be clear and not confuse the two.

Yes when you bid 2clubs as gf you may be short, that is one issue.

Bypassing a longer spade suit to bid a short two clubs is a totally different discussion.

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2025-July-15, 14:40, said:

I think there are two issues here, just to be clear and not confuse the two.

Yes when you bid 2clubs as gf you may be short, that is one issue.

Bypassing a longer spade suit to bid a short two clubs is a totally different discussion.

is this another style/judgment than right vs. wrong?

[DavidKok]

Yes, this is a style question.

Consider some examples. The problem hand is something like a 4=2=3=4 17-count opposite partner's 1♥ opening. If we respond 1♠ we might catch an awkward 2♥ response, where we might struggle to support the hearts and show slam interest below the game level, but we're also not strong enough to commit to slam. A 2♦ rebid by opener would be even worse - now we'd bid 3♣ 4SGF, but over that 3♥ is the generic punt and we might lose a 6-2 fit. And we still haven't shown our strength: 1♥-1♠; 2♦-3♣*; 3♥-4NT perhaps, but this is not ideal when we might have a heart fit or partner might think this is Blackwood.
Over 1♥-2♣ we do not have these problems, but we have other ones. On 1♥-2♣; 2♥ for example, who in our partnership should explore the spade fit? Is a 2♠ rebid now at least 5 clubs (for me: yes), and if so should opener really offer their spade suit on 1♥-2♣; 2♥-2NT; ? and leak information in the high percentage of cases where responder did not have spades? In return you do get to support the hearts easily - 1♥-2♣; 2♥-3♥, or 1♥-2♣; 2♦-2NT; 3♥-? and now any change of suit is a control bid for hearts, as we'd have offered a natural suit on previous rounds.
Incidentally, Larry Cohen also likes bidding 2♣ rather than 1♠ over 1♥ with a GF hand and 4-4 in the black suits. But, as always, he lists the pros and cons and mentions that it's a style question for the partnership.

If I can sell you on the idea of bypassing 4 spades to bid 4 clubs, maybe I can also convince you to try 1♥-2♣ on 4=2=4=3. I find that with these balanced powerhouses setting up the game force gives me enough space to explore the best strain later. On this start I benefit from playing a variation of 'shape first', so that a 2M rebid is not a catchall - though 'everything artificial' is better still.
There are other solutions, e.g. playing gadgets on 1♥-1♠; 2X (especially 2♥ or 2♦). The bidding space is limited, but there is some room to do something clever. Unfortunately there are other auctions to worry about too, e.g. 1♥-1♠; 3♥ and you have a balanced 15-count with 4=2 in the majors.

At the end of the day it is very much a style question, but personally I think there are more upsides than downsides to starting with a 2♣ response, even if it's a 0+ 2♣.

[mikl_plkcc]

 DavidKok, on 2025-July-15, 15:23, said:

Yes, this is a style question.

Consider some examples. The problem hand is something like a 4=2=3=4 17-count opposite partner's 1♥ opening. If we respond 1♠ we might catch an awkward 2♥ response, where we might struggle to support the hearts and show slam interest below the game level, but we're also not strong enough to commit to slam. A 2♦ rebid by opener would be even worse - now we'd bid 3♣ 4SGF, but over that 3♥ is the generic punt and we might lose a 6-2 fit. And we still haven't shown our strength: 1♥-1♠; 2♦-3♣*; 3♥-4NT perhaps, but this is not ideal when we might have a heart fit or partner might think this is Blackwood.
Over 1♥-2♣ we do not have these problems, but we have other ones. On 1♥-2♣; 2♥ for example, who in our partnership should explore the spade fit? Is a 2♠ rebid now at least 5 clubs (for me: yes), and if so should opener really offer their spade suit on 1♥-2♣; 2♥-2NT; ? and leak information in the high percentage of cases where responder did not have spades? In return you do get to support the hearts easily - 1♥-2♣; 2♥-3♥, or 1♥-2♣; 2♦-2NT; 3♥-? and now any change of suit is a control bid for hearts, as we'd have offered a natural suit on previous rounds.
Incidentally, Larry Cohen also likes bidding 2♣ rather than 1♠ over 1♥ with a GF hand and 4-4 in the black suits. But, as always, he lists the pros and cons and mentions that it's a style question for the partnership.

If I can sell you on the idea of bypassing 4 spades to bid 4 clubs, maybe I can also convince you to try 1♥-2♣ on 4=2=4=3. I find that with these balanced powerhouses setting up the game force gives me enough space to explore the best strain later. On this start I benefit from playing a variation of 'shape first', so that a 2M rebid is not a catchall - though 'everything artificial' is better still.
There are other solutions, e.g. playing gadgets on 1♥-1♠; 2X (especially 2♥ or 2♦). The bidding space is limited, but there is some room to do something clever. Unfortunately there are other auctions to worry about too, e.g. 1♥-1♠; 3♥ and you have a balanced 15-count with 4=2 in the majors.

At the end of the day it is very much a style question, but personally I think there are more upsides than downsides to starting with a 2♣ response, even if it's a 0+ 2♣.

All these short club methods, including short club opening, short 2/1 2♣, and short 2♣ after Forcing 1NT, solves a problem by introducing another (the inability to find a ♣ fit), therefore I don't want to play them with any of my regular partners.

With your 4=2=3=4 17-count opposite a 1♥ opening, if opener rebids 2♥ after my 1♠, I can bid third suit forcing 3♣ which is a general purpose game force without a clear direction. Then whatever the opener rebids I jump to 4♥, and hope that the opener can infer I am not a minimum because I didn't raise direct to 4, and I have a real fit because I bypassed 3NT.

After 1♥-1♠-2♦-3♣ (4SF), if opener rebids 3NT it is an easy raise to 4NT; if opener bids something else and I bid 3NT anyway I am hoping that opener can infer I don't have a minimum because I didn't bid 3NT direct.

[mike777]

 mikl_plkcc, on 2025-July-15, 15:59, said:

All these short club methods, including short club opening, short 2/1 2♣, and short 2♣ after Forcing 1NT, solves a problem by introducing another (the inability to find a ♣ fit), therefore I don't want to play them with any of my regular partners.

With your 4=2=3=4 17-count opposite a 1♥ opening, if opener rebids 2♥ after my 1♠, I can bid third suit forcing 3♣ which is a general purpose game force without a clear direction. Then whatever the opener rebids I jump to 4♥, and hope that the opener can infer I am not a minimum because I didn't raise direct to 4, and I have a real fit because I bypassed 3NT.

After 1♥-1♠-2♦-3♣ (4SF), if opener rebids 3NT it is an easy raise to 4NT; if opener bids something else and I bid 3NT anyway I am hoping that opener can infer I don't have a minimum because I didn't bid 3NT direct.

Poor poor club suit, just one more reason to ignore the club suit

Not just hard to find, but people start to not want to bother looking for it.

[smerriman]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-July-15, 15:59, said:

I don't want to play them

Great, your system is perfect - keep bidding those slams!

[akwoo]

There are always going to be tradeoffs. I think keeping 2♣ natural is reasonable - you're not going to lose very much if anything, and it's less memory.

I do think 1♥-3N should deny 4 spades, so you are left with 1♥-1♠ here. As I posted above, opener is worth the 4♣ splinter, after which it's very easy to find slam.

I also believe that 1♥-2♠ should show some specific hand with both spades and some kind of heart support. It should be well defined, and almost any specific definition will take pressure off some of the problematic sequences described earlier.

[WasWinM]

Why isn’t anyone bidding 1S as responder instead of that silly 3n. And what is the fixation with bidding 2c?

[mike777]

I really don't mind the 3NT bid so much.
It is very limited and descriptive.
14-16
4333, not 4 hearts.stoppers.

It should not stop the slam.
Perhaps it stops robots

[WasWinM]

 mike777, on 2025-July-15, 18:47, said:

I really don't mind the 3NT bid so much.
It is very limited and descriptive.
14-16
4333, not 4 hearts.stoppers.

It should not stop the slam.
Perhaps it stops robots

3N should deny 4 spades.