[jillybean]

---

2♦ is NMF here. Do you pass, raise clubs or do you have a better idea?

[CSGibson]

raise clubs for me. Never pass, the choices are between inviting and forcing to game in my opinion.

[aguahombre]

CSGibson, on 2012-June-06, 22:09, said:

raise clubs for me. Never pass, the choices are between inviting and forcing to game in my opinion.

Yep. Bidding 2D, then showing club support would be right if the Jack of spades were the Ace (slammish for clubs--AXXXX X AKQX TXX). With OP hand, just raising clubs is fine.

[han]

Did bidding 1S hurt? If not, I think there is something wrong.

Maybe we are worth an invitation but our hand is so unusual that it will be impossible for partner to make a good decision.

I would jump to 5C. It is easy to imagine an opening lead giving away the contract when 5C is bad, and with the right minimum 5C will be quite good.

[ArtK78]

3♣ for me. 3NT is still a live possibility, and there is certainly no assurance that 11 tricks in clubs are there.

[Fluffy]

I find 3♣ easy, aside from the problem han points is perfect. We will arrive at 3NT if partner has 4hearts or 3 strong ones and a maximum.

[jillybean]

han, on 2012-June-07, 01:15, said:

Did bidding 1S hurt? If not, I think there is something wrong.

Yes, I would have been better starting 1♦. Then partner would response 1♥

[Flem72]

jillybean, on 2012-June-06, 21:57, said:

---

2♦ is NMF here. Do you pass, raise clubs or do you have a better idea?

3H, spl. Allows 3N, 4C or 5C. Maybe even 4S.

[han]

Fluffy, on 2012-June-07, 08:18, said:

I find 3♣ easy, aside from the problem han points is perfect. We will arrive at 3NT if partner has 4hearts or 3 strong ones and a maximum.

I don't know how partner would know that Axx of hearts is not strong enough, while xxx of diamonds is plenty strong.

Besides, you'll miss excellent games if partner has a normal minimum such as

x
AJx
Jxx
AQxxxx

I'm talking about 5C of course, 3NT is far from excellent.

[jillybean]

This was the full hand. I messed up first by not bidding 1♦/1♣ and then again when I forgot that we had added nmf over a rebid of a minor to our cc.

---

[aguahombre]

jillybean, on 2012-June-07, 14:10, said:

This was the full hand. I messed up first by not bidding 1♦/1♣ and then again when I forgot that we had added nmf over a rebid of a minor to our cc.

Maybe, if you are playing SAYC or some basic style. But this hand is nowhere near a 1 diamond response if a later spade rebid is g.f. or even close to g.f.

If that is the case, however, bidding 2D, whether intended as some artificial convention (which I won't call "NMF") or as natural and non-forcing, was just an error in evaluation for either strain or level.

[jillybean]

aguahombre, on 2012-June-07, 14:31, said:

Maybe, if you are playing SAYC or some basic style. But this hand is nowhere near a 1 diamond response if a later spade rebid is g.f. or even close to g.f.

I never intended to say that, did I? I would not bid spades over 1♣ 1♦ 1N

[CSGibson]

jillybean, on 2012-June-07, 14:10, said:

This was the full hand. I messed up first by not bidding 1♦/1♣ and then again when I forgot that we had added nmf over a rebid of a minor to our cc.

---

No, your partner messed up by not raising 1♠ to two.

[Flem72]

CSGibson, on 2012-June-07, 16:20, said:

No, your partner messed up by not raising 1♠ to two.

On this shape and strength, I agree. 2C ought to either claim 6C or deny 3S -- some 2-4-2-5, 2-2-4-5 or 1-4-3-5 could rebid 1N if that is your style. Except maybe Pard is thinking "we now have 2D to show 5 Ss so I'll rebid my very good C suit." (Still like 3H here by R. )

Query: if you held

QJxx
x
AQJxxx
xx,

you'd bid what, 1C-1S/2D-2S/3D? or 1C-1S/2C-3D? (One weak, other -- likely 2D then 3D --inv?) then that D suit looks like a 6-bagger....

[jillybean]

CSGibson, on 2012-June-07, 16:20, said:

No, your partner messed up by not raising 1♠ to two.

Yes, that would have saved me from myself.

[han]

Agree that partner should raise to 2S.