[jdonn]

jdonn, on Apr 30 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

I'm just summarizing the answers so far, for convenience. At R/W, R/R, W/W, W/R, we so far have (I think):

Ok, editing:

andyh, echognome, robf: 2♣. 2♣. 2♣. 2♣
oleberg, fluffy: 3♣, 3♣, 3♣, 3♣ (with a wtp!)
apollo81, jdonn: 2♣, 2♣, 3♣, 3♣
peachy: 2♣, 2♣, 2♣, 3♣
markdean, phil: P, P, 3♣, 3♣
jlol: P, 2♣, 2♣, 3♣
mtvesuvius, gwnn: P, 2♣, 3♣, 3♣
gnasher: P, 3♣, 3♣, 3♣
p_marlowe, hanp: I can't tell.

If I rate pass 0 2♣ 1 and 3♣ 2 in terms of aggressiveness, and the vuls 4, 3, 2, 1 in the order i listed them, and multiply for a full aggressiveness rating, we have:
markdean, phil: 6
jlol: 7
mtvesuvius, gwnn: 9
andyh, echognome, robf: 10
peachy: 11
gnasher: 12
apollo81, jdonn: 13
oleberg, fluffy: 20 wtp?

I actually think a better rating would be something like at different vuls the bids are worth 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5. But whatever.

[kfay]

JLOL, on Apr 30 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

red/white if my partner is wondering who has what I think he'll assume I have it. I'd pass at this vul and bid at at any other (bid 3 if w/r).

Right. This was my biggest fear.

If I could bar partner from taking any bids then it's easy. But things could escalate out of control quickly.

[gnasher]

Since no one else has suggested it yet, I offer you

P,3♣,3♣,3♣

I don't play 2♣ as a weaker version of 3♣ (though maybe I should). That makes it a 3♣ bid or a pass, depending on the vulnerability.

[gwnn]

p, 2♣, 3♣, 3♣

[andy_h]

Echognome, on May 1 2009, 07:59 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 30 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

I'm just summarizing the answers so far, for convenience. At R/W, R/R, W/W, W/R, we so far have (I think):

apollo81, andyh, echognome: 2♣. 2♣. 2♣. 2♣
oleberg: 3♣, 3♣, 3♣, 3♣ (with a wtp!)
markdean: P, P, P, P
jdonn: 2♣, 2♣, 3♣, 3♣
peachy: 2♣, 2♣, 2♣, 3♣
phil: P, P, 3♣, 3♣
jlol:P, 2♣, 2♣, 3♣
mtvesuvius: P, 2♣, 3♣, 3♣
p_marlowe, robf, hanp: I can't tell.

There, now everyone can just say "agree with ___".

Agree with andyh (until he changes his answer).

Yeap changed. I was also only answering in the context of OP. At NV I would definitely bid 3♣.

[benlessard]

P,2C,3C,3C or

P,P,3C,3C

for me

[Fasteddy]

It seems to be conventional wisdom that 2♣ here shows a good hand, but 2♣ has great obstructive value and should be a viable option when 3♣ would be too rich. If your partnership agrees that 2♣ can be bid with hands like this, advancer shouldn't get carried away. There's room for a cuebid or 2NT (which should be forcing) when pard has a good hand, so the structure can usually tolerate a wide range for the overcall.

The Italians, who used 3♣ to show a two-suiter, had no problems bidding 2♣ with these hands, and they did okay:)