[nigel_k]

---

Matchpoints, expert partner but few agreements. Obviously it matters what partner would normally open with 4144 but I didn't know this at the table.

[Phil]

I don't think 2♣ promises anything extra here. I would be content with 3♣, knowing partner can still move on with a 15-16 count.

[Cascade]

nigel_k, on 2010-December-28, 13:26, said:

---

Matchpoints, expert partner but few agreements. Obviously it matters what partner would normally open with 4144 but I didn't know this at the table.

2♣ is normally 4=0=5=4. Although it is a thinking bid with 4=1=4=4 or 4=1=5=3 with invitational values as it is mildly presumptius to assume a heart stopper for a 1♥ response that can easily be made on four small.

I raise to 3♣. I would raise more but my ♥AK are only of dubious value now - they may be useful as pitches they might not.

Perhaps 2NT has some merit but I feel that 5♣ is more likely to make than 3NT if we have a game.

[mike777]

3c no problem yet.

[whereagles]

Indeed. A simple raise is fair. In fact, I consider it a non-problem.

[han]

3C is not enough, I'd bid 2H.

[kenrexford]

han, on 2010-December-28, 17:51, said:

3C is not enough, I'd bid 2H.

I agree with this call.

[nige1]

nigel_k, on 2010-December-28, 13:26, said:

Matchpoints, expert partner but few agreements. Obviously it matters what partner would normally open with 4144 but I didn't know this at the table.

---

IMO 3♣ = 10, 2♠ = 9, 2N = 8, 4♣ = 7, 2♥ = 2.
At MP, a spade part-score may be worth consideration but game in clubs is also possible. 2♥ is fine with a clairvoyant partner but mine would take it as suggestion to play with, say, ♠ xx ♥ JT987x ♦ xx ♣ AQT

[MrAce]

To me, this definetely shows extras, i want to bid something more than 3♣, 2♥ or 3♥ probably. I cant take the chance to miss game here 5♣ or 3 NT.

[han]

nige1, on 2010-December-28, 19:44, said:

IMO 3♣ = 10, 2♠ = 9, 2N = 8, 4♣ = 7, 2♥ = 2.
At MP, a spade part-score may be worth consideration but game in clubs is also possible. 2♥ is fine with a clairvoyant partner but mine would take it as suggestion to play with, say, ♠ xx ♥ JT987x ♦ xx ♣ AQT

I play that 1D - 1H - 1S - 2H is already a suggestion to play. I find it unlikely that I suggested 1NT last turn, and now that partner has shown a heart void I want to play hearts.

[Fluffy]

6 losers, we need partner with 4 bullets for game, people are overbidding this hand with wasted heart honnors. 3♣ and I don't even feel maximum for the bid.

[JLOGIC]

Agree with fluffy that 2H is an overbid...we have the AK of hearts! We could pass 2C, so 3C shows some values. We could not bid 3C without 5 clubs. So 3C shows some values and 5 clubs, seems fine to me. Our hand could be much better, like the HK somewhere else, and those are the hands I'd use 2H on (or slightly weaker).

I think hanp just wanted to be cool and show that 2H is a cue since it's not listed in the poll

[gnasher]

Shouldn't 2♥ show a hand with no heart wastage, eg Axx xxxx x KJxxx?

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2010-December-29, 13:43, said:

Shouldn't 2♥ show a hand with no heart wastage, eg Axx xxxx x KJxxx?

That seems pretty specific since it's our only cuebid available. I would think it was just a massive hand too strong to just raise, which I guess logically would include not much wasted in hearts.