[pclayton]

Is it really so tough to rebid an 8 bagger a 2nd time than to take preference with 10x?

The bromide about putting down an 8 card suit in dummy holds water again.

[inquiry]

mcphee, on Jan 5 2007, 09:00 AM, said:

Incredible to see so many reach 5C. I know I wouldn't.
1H 1N
3D 4C could not bring myself to bid 3H and not show C
4D 4H

I think bidding past 4H to 5C is a grave error in judgement. With the hands shown the 5C bidders are a bit lucky, 6C bidders are dreamers as this is just horrible to even consider. (how lucky pard not only had a trump but covered BOTH S losers when he might have held Kx S [yum yum].

While I agree in principle that that bidders who reach 6♣ (and I might be one) are bidding double dummy (as suggested by you and mikeh, two well respected gold stars), it certainly is not impossible. For one, I see little wrong with 1H-5C to play as an auction (suggested by two posters). And I am not sure I would pass 5♣ on that auction with south’s hand.

I do, disagree with the auctions that start 1H-3C (no matter what 3C shows), and 1H-2C in 2/1 GF, and I am far from convinced the shown auctions using those starting bids are accurate. I think Mikeh's auction with a 3D jump and rebid, and a begruding preference to 4H is probably right for 2/1 (if not 1H-5C), but I think you also have to realize most bridge players have heard the old adage about never putting down an 8 card suit as dummy, so someone insisting on playing in clubs is not unexpected, even non-double dummy.

On the other hand, a few gadget methods do exist. One Gadget I like is something Mikeh has referred to as a "kludge" is a strong (4 losers or less) two suited opening bid. I think the auction I showed would in fact be used at the table in a non-double dummy way, and it has an advantage of allowing us to play in 4♥ if the heart suit was better or the hand stronger. That is, on the misiry auction (misiry is the name given my kludge convention), if opener was stronger (2 losers say), or if opener hearts were better (3 losers, self-sufficient hearts), over the 3NT bid he would not tamely bid a passable 4♣.

I have avoided talking much about misiry the last year or two, because I beat it to death some time ago, and had to endure numerous "kludge" like comments from people. I guess the last long post on misiry would be the Misiry Challenge. This days, I only refer to misiry when a post, like this one, ask an open ended question on how you would bid it in your favorite system (or with your favorite partner, which i the same thing). To remind us, the misery auction was

2NT - 3NT
4C

where 2NT was either a club preempt or strong two suiter with hearts and either spades or diamonds as the second suit.... 3NT was either natural to play opposite a preempt in clubs, or a hand that wants to play in clubs opposite any strong two suiter (by implication, less than 3 hearts btw if weak with clubs…. The 3NT bidder might not get to play in clubs however, as the 2NT hand is unlimited in stegnth, and could be 7-6 or possibly even 8-5). 4C was conventional and said, I have a two suiter with hearts, but am willing to play in clubs should that be your intention (not insisting on one of his own suits). (Note with a club preempt, of course you pass 3NT).

With 8 clubs AQT9 opposite what is generally at least 5 controls and often more, I can't imagine north either passing 4C or bidding to play in the possible 5-2 heart fit when south was willing to play in clubs (if necessary). And south, with so much more than promised, certainly has to entertain bidding slam, for north really probably shouldn't ahve two club losers on this misfit auction.

Quote

6C bidders are dreamers as this is just horrible to even consider. (how lucky pard  not only had a trump but covered BOTH S losers when he might have held Kx S [yum yum].

A final note, in the misiry auction it is not north who bids the slam hoping south has spade stoppers, it is SOUTH who is looking at both his trump and his covers in spades (and diamonds and hearts) would have to make that decision. It is also worth noting, that every other person (codo, awn) who "bid to 6C" had south also making the final decision to bid the slam, so their souths were also looking at a trump and the spade stoppers as well. So this comment is not quite fair.

I would take it that getting to clubs, and 6♣ (if that is the final contract) using misiry would represent t his hand as being another example suitable for the challenge (good or bad) if the expert standard is to play 4♥.

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Jan 5 2007, 10:41 AM, said:

Is it really so tough to rebid an 8 bagger a 2nd time than to take preference with 10x?

The bromide about putting down an 8 card suit in dummy holds water again.

not when you can see both hands

I don't doubt that a number of posters would truly reach 5♣ single-dummy: but when I see EVERYONE reaching a ♣ contract, and several of them a slam, then I am morally certain that some, at least, have fallen victim to magic bidding: bidding as if we can see all the hands...

No-one, other than mcphee, has yet commented on the substantial probability that the typical S hand will afford very little play for a high level ♣ contract..while being almost cold in 4♥. Anyone who insists they would reach a ♣ contract without so much as discussing (in an objective fashion) that issue is a little short on credibility as far as I am concerned. I gave a couple of examples of such hands...all the ♣ bidders seem to assume that NS can actually see each other's hands.

Even I would reach ♣s on that basis

As for 1♥ 5♣, with all respect, I think that is ridiculous... another double dummy solution that has as its only merit recognition of the implausibility of the other auctions that end in ♣s. While the go-slow approach is unlikely to result in a good auction, it has a heck of a better chance than blasting 5♣ over 1♥.

If the poster had bid 5♣ over 1♥ and then asked who was to blame when dummy hit with Q10x AJxxx KQJx x or KQxx KJxxx AQJx void etc, I am sure that the finger of blame would be 100% pointed at North, yet, because S has the freak he has, we find all kinds of posters advocating insistence on ♣s.

[neilkaz]

Lots of strong opinions on this hand and I am in major disagreement with some of them. To me this is not that difficult a hand and the main decision playing my typical 2/1 w/Bergan raises is whether we play 5 or 6♣.

After 1♥ I respond 1NTF intending to show an invite with a jump to 3♣, but opener surprised me with a GF 3♦ jump shift. I now bid 4♣ natural and opner patterns out with 4♦. Next comes 5♣ from me and opener obviously knows that I have a bunch of ♣ and looking at 5 Tricks he has a decision to make, but I'd wimp out and pass 5♣ with my stiff and min game force.

WTP ? .. neilkaz ..

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Jan 5 2007, 11:28 AM, said:

As for 1♥ 5♣, with all respect, I think that is ridiculous... another double dummy solution that has as its only merit recognition of the implausibility of the other auctions that end in ♣s. While the go-slow approach is unlikely to result in a good auction, it has a heck of a better chance than blasting 5♣ over 1♥.

If the poster had bid 5♣ over 1♥ and then asked who was to blame when dummy hit with Q10x AJxxx KQJx x or KQxx KJxxx AQJx void etc, I am sure that the finger of blame would be 100% pointed at North, yet, because S has the freak he has, we find all kinds of posters advocating insistence on ♣s.

Besides.....isnt 1♥-5♣ exclusion keycard for ♥ (for those of us who play it)?

Which takes this out of the equation anyway.

[MarceldB]

Because of no limitation regarding the used system:

The sequence in REGRESsion will be:

Pass = 13+ any shape
- 2♣ = 6-11p. s/v♦, L=♣ (no 5+/5+ or 7+/4)
2♦= relay
-2♠= 1-suiter
2NT= relay *
-4♣= 2=2=1=8 and 5/6-8p.
4♥= Slam Asking Bid, ♣=trump
-5♣= 1 Ace/5 + Queen♣
6♣
- Pass

*most common 1-suiter(s) is of course the 6331, + the 7321 and 7330, so relayer is investigating for ♥.
Relayer knows after 4♣ , no loosers in the other suits and 6♣ is reasonable.

Regards,
Marcel

[inquiry]

mikeh, on Jan 5 2007, 11:28 AM, said:

all the ♣ bidders seem to assume that NS can actually see each other's hands.

Well, I am a club bidder, and in some ways, at my table, we "can" see each other hands. In Misiry, 2NT-3NT-4C is quite descriptive, as it the subsequent 5♣ bid.

Quote

No-one, other than mcphee, has yet commented on the substantial probability that the typical S hand will afford very little play for a high level ♣ contract..while being almost cold in 4♥.

Well, errr, excuse me. I think maybe you forgot about the misiry auction. The typical south hand after 2NT is pretty much along the lines of what south held here (could have spades as second suit instead of diamonds). Further, the conventional 4♣ bid makes clubs much more attractive as a contract. North knows quite a lot about south's hand. It has 4 losers or 3 losers without a fairly self-sufficient heart suit (with fewer losers, or better hearts -- or better spades as the second suit-- he would not have bid 4♣ over 3NT). South will also not be 6-6 in his two suits with a void in clubs and rebid 4♣ (which is pasable, and most frequently passed). This addresses several of the comments you made here... why not bid 4♥ on the 5-2 fit, and why clubs will be playable.

Quote

Anyone who insists they would reach a ♣ contract without so much as discussing (in an objective fashion) that issue is a little short on credibility as far as I am concerned.

Well, I think, at least for me, I discussed such issues. I would like to think MisIry is the only way to bid this hand pair to 5 or 6 clubs, but I am less skeptical of the other auctions than you. I simply know some people will never table an great eight card suit like this, and they will bid and rebid clubs until the cows home. My 3NT bidder has to make a decision. That is to play 5♣ if partner bids 4♣ or to play 4♥ if he does not. If opener had bid something other than 4♣ that eight card suit would never have been bid (well, 3NT in effect is a club bid when slam auction does not follow openers rebid).

I also found Adam's (awn) auction reasonable believable if you are not playing 2/1 as GF.

[inquiry]

MarceldB, on Jan 5 2007, 12:19 PM, said:

Because of no limitation regarding the used system:

The sequence in REGRESsion will be:

Pass = 13+ any shape
- 2♣ = 6-11p. s/v♦, L=♣ (no 5+/5+ or 7+/4)
2♦= relay
-2♠= 1-suiter
2NT= relay *
-4♣= 2=2=1=8 and 5/6-8p.
4♥= Slam Asking Bid, ♣=trump
-5♣= 1 Ace/5 + Queen♣
6♣
- Pass

*most common 1-suiter(s) is of course the 6331, + the 7321 and 7330, so relayer is investigating for ♥.
Relayer knows after 4♣ , no loosers in the other suits and 6♣ is reasonable.

Regards,
Marcel

Which bid showed the ten of clubs? One of the reasons slam is so good (and game if good) is the quality of the club suit.

With AQ-eight (no ten) you have some problems. Play ACE and drop the JACK, you can lose two tricks to KTx. AQT-eighth seems to allow you to play for 2-2 clubs or singleton King or JACK. It takes KJx to beat you. Missing the TEN, then KJx or KTx will do the same (well you could play to finesse the king), but then JTx with singleton king offside gets you.

[mikeh]

inquiry, on Jan 5 2007, 12:35 PM, said:

Well, errr, excuse me. I think maybe you forgot about the misiry auction.

arrgghhhh!!!

To quote someone I know

Actually, it is not that I forgot the misiry auction, it is that I was aiming my comments at the methods I like to think I understand, and can thus at least pretend to be able to critique in a semi-intelligble fashion. I accept, in part because I lack the knowledge needed to reject, your misiry auction.


And I accept, as I said in my last post, that there are bidders who really do act as if bridge sayings (never lay down an 8 card side suit) are fundamental rules of the game. But I stand by my other points

[inquiry]

mikeh, on Jan 5 2007, 12:50 PM, said:

inquiry, on Jan 5 2007, 12:35 PM, said:

Well, errr, excuse me. I think maybe you forgot about the misiry auction.

arrgghhhh!!!

To quote someone I know

Actually, it is not that I forgot the misiry auction, it is that I was aiming my comments at the methods I like to think I understand, and can thus at least pretend to be able to critique in a semi-intelligble fashion. I accept, in part because I lack the knowledge needed to reject, your misiry auction.


And I accept, as I said in my last post, that there are bidders who really do act as if bridge sayings (never lay down an 8 card side suit) are fundamental rules of the game. But I stand by my other points

Well, ok then.. but you lumped "all the club bidders" into the same group and said they were bidding as if they could see both hands. I would like to think that a less global statement.. like "most of the club bidders" would not have drawn a response from me at all. But since, I for one, don't think MY bidding to 5♣ is double dummy (6♣ does require a guess to bid and may be influenced by seeing the hand) I felt compelled to comment. Also, I doubt very much adam's was double dummy either... (after 3NT which looks reasonable on his auction, 5♣ looks clear, as there will not be a club void opposite).

Also, for the record, I pointed out where I agreed with you (and bob). Saying in particular I disagree with 2♣ playing 2/1 GF (awn does not) and I agreed with your assessment of how a 2/1 auction should go.........

Quote

I think Mikeh's auction with a 3D jump and rebid, and a begruding preference to 4H is probably right for 2/1 (if not 1H-5C),

but then added the caveat that although I agree that is the proper auction, that many (most?) would not bid it that way single dummy by adding....

Quote

but I think you also have to realize most bridge players have heard the old adage about never putting down an 8 card suit as dummy, so someone insisting on playing in clubs is not unexpected, even non-double dummy.

[neilkaz]

While the direct jump to 5♣ is not the worst bid in the world, it isn't mychoice since you'll often preempt PD out of the proper contract. PD is allowed to have 6♥, for example.

For those that play exclusion, me included, I'd make a forcing bid to find out more info about PD's hand prior to jumping to exclusion.

[Echognome]

This is a horrible hand for my favorite couple systems. It would be a strong club and relay auction (surprisingly uncontested from responder's point of view), but we don't have a way to show an 8 card suit. The "lie" we would tell is 'easy' in the sense that we would show this as a 2.5=2.5=1=7 hand (we also don't give an exact pattern for 7321 hands!), but this makes it tough on opener. Anyway, here goes how I think it would go at the table (I'm fairly confident about the first 6 bids):

1♣(1) - 1♦(2)
1♥(3) - 2♥(4)
2♠(5) - 4♣(6)
4♥ - Pass

(1)16+ Any
(2)0-8 OR <2 controls
(3)19+ Any
(4)6-8 with 1+ controls, 5+♣
(5)Relay
(6)3=2=1=7 OR 2=3=1=7

And now opener must decide what to do opposite either of those shapes. Responder's hand is not different enough from what he has shown to make a unilateral action opposite what could be solid hearts from his partner. Opener will dread seeing a 3=2=1=7 hand but with the possibility of a diamond ruff (or maybe 2), 4♥ seems like the best shot at game.

[Halo]

I think it is quite interesting that bidding 5C with an 8 card suit and bust is 'ridiculous'. Who is seeing all the hands? I thought about various sequences after 1NT and then thought, well why not bid what you really would bid at the table - and that is and will be next time 5C. I wondered if partner could pass this, but that is too hard seeing both hands. It's quite possible he would bid 6 with his excellent controls.

[Fluffy]

1♥-1♠*
3♦-4♥

[gwnn]

Meheh, fun hand! Opps may come in with their 9 spades, but unlikely, they only have qt etc. In my fav relay system one has to show this as 5332 and then bid clubs again. It's a bit bad cause 1♣ opener will investigate a heart slam hearing about the alleged "support"... Erm. In 2/1 I'd have followed Phil's sequence probably. Invitational jump shifts (provided they show a characteristic suit, which this one certainly is) are very nice!

[Winstonm]

1H-2C
3D-4C
4D-5C
5S-6C
P

Some hands do not fit systems well, and this is such a hand; however, I have the luxury of playing 2C then 3C as non-forcing in certain 2/1 auctions and thus can bid 2C with the intent of continuing to bid clubs until the cows come home.

It is very definately simply "taking a position" on the hand, but this hand IMO is only worth something in a club contract - unless you find partner with the magic Kx - therefore I will insist on playing clubs unless partner's bidding shows he has an equal suit and better hand.

[Codo]

I cannot buy all these comments against bidding clubs:
1. IF you evaluate your hand in FES, you have 7 HCPs and 4 length points, which is simply enough for a 2/1.
2. If pd has no club fit, you have about two tricks for him in a Heart contract, but about 6 or 7 in a club contract.
3. Most Club bidders had been able to stop in 3 Club, quite the best spot opposite a "normal" opening.
4.Noone (besides misry...) reached 5 or 6 clubs with confidence. These descissions had been made without knowing exactly what pd had.
5. 1 ♥ 5 ♣ sounds like exclusion

I think, I had tried 6 Club with the south hand. Obviously, pd may had have a hand, where the slam has no play at all if he is just missing some intermedeates. On the other hand, his clubs could have been even better too.

[pclayton]

bid_em_up, on Jan 5 2007, 09:11 AM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 5 2007, 11:28 AM, said:

As for 1♥  5♣, with all respect, I think that is ridiculous... another double dummy solution that has as its only merit recognition of the implausibility of the other auctions that end in ♣s. While the go-slow approach is unlikely to result in a good auction, it has a heck of a better chance than blasting 5♣ over 1♥.

If the poster had bid 5♣ over 1♥ and then asked who was to blame when dummy hit with Q10x AJxxx KQJx x or KQxx KJxxx AQJx void etc, I am sure that the finger of blame would be 100% pointed at North, yet, because S has the freak he has, we find all kinds of posters advocating insistence on ♣s.

Besides.....isnt 1♥-5♣ exclusion keycard for ♥ (for those of us who play it)?

Which takes this out of the equation anyway.

I play EKCB and this isn't exclusion. To make the call, start with a forcing raise and then jump in clubs.

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on Jan 7 2007, 11:51 AM, said:

1H-2C
3D-4C
4D-5C
5S-6C
P

Some hands do not fit systems well, and this is such a hand; however, I have the luxury of playing 2C then 3C as non-forcing in certain 2/1 auctions and thus can bid 2C with the intent of continuing to bid clubs until the cows come home.

It is very definately simply "taking a position" on the hand, but this hand IMO is only worth something in a club contract - unless you find partner with the magic Kx - therefore I will insist on playing clubs unless partner's bidding shows he has an equal suit and better hand.

In a recent thread, the consensus was that the sequence 1♥ 2♣ 3♦ was a splinter, in 2/1 GF...not a universal consensus, but a clear one. I do not recall what your view was, or whether you expressed one, but this sequence would not work well opposite most forum posters Altho many would suspect that you had 'forgotten'....

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Jan 8 2007, 11:50 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Jan 5 2007, 09:11 AM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 5 2007, 11:28 AM, said:

As for 1♥  5♣, with all respect, I think that is ridiculous... another double dummy solution that has as its only merit recognition of the implausibility of the other auctions that end in ♣s. While the go-slow approach is unlikely to result in a good auction, it has a heck of a better chance than blasting 5♣ over 1♥.

If the poster had bid 5♣ over 1♥ and then asked who was to blame when dummy hit with Q10x AJxxx KQJx x or KQxx KJxxx AQJx void etc, I am sure that the finger of blame would be 100% pointed at North, yet, because S has the freak he has, we find all kinds of posters advocating insistence on ♣s.

Besides.....isnt 1♥-5♣ exclusion keycard for ♥ (for those of us who play it)?

Which takes this out of the equation anyway.

I play EKCB and this isn't exclusion. To make the call, start with a forcing raise and then jump in clubs.

I agree with Phil: there is no point in using 5♣ as an immediate exclusion call: there is no hand I can construct that cannot make some lower call first, no matter how weird the hand may be.

My comment about it being ridiculous to bid 5♣ is based on the hand itself. 5♣ should be a 1-loser suit (at most) opposite a void..... partner has opened the bidding: we hold 10x in his 5+ major, and a ruffing value and an Ace. Why on earth would we ever want to jump to 5♣, unless we were somehow in on the secret that partner held a hand like the one he did? McPhee and I seem to be the only posters who realize that there are a host of hands on which 4♥ is the better contract....

BTW, 'ridiculous' was an overbid... I think it is an error, but actually, compared to the other routes to 5 or 6♣, it is at least straightforward.

I keep coming back to the hands that partner will more commonly hold, compared to the one he held, and I keep wondering how it is that almost everyone who has posted here thinks that committing to ♣s makes sense.