[Codo]

If I belive all bidders at the table, then we have a 9 card club fit and they a 8 card spade fit. In this case, 2 Spade X is not getting us 500 or more.
So I bid on with 3 Club. This should be stronger then 2 NT and is justified because of my shape and the nice fit.

[cherdano]

I admit I would have bid 2♣ the first time.

Having passed, I will just bid 3♣. The biggest risk in that seems that opponents are only in a 7-card fit, in which case my hand is worth a lot more than when he is void.

[whereagles]

1. Pass is ok.

2. 4♣ seems fair now. Pard should be 0445 with considerable extras. The ♠A is junk, but the cross shortness should be golden. Would definitely cue with the ♠A in hearts.

[helene_t]

4♣. But I would have bid 2♣ first time.

[dake50]

2 likely ruff tricks + ??SA: Jump 4C.

[FrancesHinden]

I would have bid 2♣ the first round (it's wildly unlikely partner has 3 spades, which for my methods means he is wildly likely to have 4+ clubs).

Anyway, having passed, now what? Partner's double should show a good hand (there was some thread before where it was suggested partner could have some 0445 12-count but I'm certain justin wasn't in that camp). What is a down-the-middle double: - KQxx Axxx AKxxx? That has a nice diamond holding (switching the red suits makes it worse) and 5C is probably not with the odds NV though hardly a disaster. If partner has a 6th club 5C is likely to be good.

I think I bid 3C, but I don't mind 4. My husband bid 4C when given the hand as a problem but said he didn't mind 3 (though he was another 2C-bidder-last-round).

p.s. I wouldn't play lebensohl here. 2NT wouldn't be natural for me, it would be scramble. If I couldn't bid over 1S I don't have a very wide range of possible hands so lebensohl is not that useful.

[hrothgar]

I don't like the initial pass. I would (probably) have bid 3♣ to start with.

After the double, I'm bidding 4♣

[Apollo81]

I often see problems posed like this where the first action taken is strange and put you in a position where you either have to "make up" for the first action or continue the unusual position taken.

Usually in these situations I vote to continue the original (strange) position if it's at all reasonable, so I'd bid 3♣ here and pray they compete to 3♠. Pard has a spade void so I think he can have a variety of hands where we will get a minus if I bid 4♣. I really hate that I have bid this the same way as if I had total *****.

There is no way I'd have passed the first time on this hand. I'd bid 2♣.

[cherdano]

Jlall, on Jan 26 2007, 08:08 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Jan 26 2007, 12:49 PM, said:

I often see problems posed like this where the first action taken is strange and put you in a position where you either have to "make up" for the first action or continue the unusual position taken.

Usually in these situations I vote to continue the original (strange) position if it's at all reasonable, so I'd bid 3♣ here and pray they compete to 3♠.  Pard has a spade void so I think he can have a variety of hands where we will get a minus if I bid 4♣.  I really hate that I have bid this the same way as if I had total *****.

There is no way I'd have passed the first time on this hand.  I'd bid 2♣.

If you would bid 2C first then fair enough but I would hardly call pass strange. Actually everyone I had given this to had passed until this post. I wouldn't categorize either pass or 2C as strange with this hand.

Whew, are we all influenced by the follow-up problem to prefer pass? Of course my length is in the worst possible suit, but A plus 4-card support plus a ruffing value still seems a better playing hand than many 8hcp hands where I think we would raise routinely. Also, if we play in a x-ruff opponents length are well-placed to avoid over-ruffs.

What are the downsides? Making it easier for opps to find a better fit? Probably, much easier for them to find a 4-4 heart fit after 2C. Partner overcompeting? I doubt it. What do i know...

[jtfanclub]

Frances:

Sorry for posting here, as I'm hardly an expert. I just don't understand the logic.

You call a down the middle X - KQxx Axxx AKxxx

1-0 Diamond to the Ace
2-0 Ruff a diamond
3-0 Club to the A
4-0 Ruff another diamond
4-1 Heart to the Q and A
5-1 Spade to the ace
6-1 Heart to the K
7-1 Last diamond ruff or a trump promotion. Either one will do.


That's down 2 for 300, and assumes that the HA is in the wrong place and clubs are 3-1. And you think that 5C is not with the odds.

I think ending in 3C is a terrible thing. They aren't going to make it, so at most it'll give me one IMP (130 vs. 100). I'm losing the chance for a huge score for one measly IMP? And if I bid 3♣, that sounds like a 0 count. Bleah.

I think I have to take a position. If I don't think we have game, I pass. If I do, I'll bid something nice and strong...3♠ sounds about right. With my pass of 1♠, partner's not going to suddenly take me for 10 hcp. Partner could easily have a hand with 8 tricks off the top and 3NT is the right place to play (6 clubs AK and the red aces would do it).

I'm sure that when I'm an expert I'll understand why this is a bad idea.

[mikeh]

Pass seems clear, originally, in a natural system. Partner may well hold a 3 card suit, and we really do not want to get involved, anyway, unless partner has a reason to bid again... as he has.

As for the decision now, I am with Jeffrey/Frances in that this is a 3.5♣ bid. Unfortunately, while bridge often involves irrational elements (at least, the way I play it) it insists upon integers in the auction. Imps gets me to bid 4♣...having passed, I can't really hold much more than this, and 3♣ now could be on a far, far worse hand. If we belong in game, and we may, then it is now my responsibility to inform partner of the possibility.

[Apollo81]

Jlall, on Jan 26 2007, 02:33 PM, said:

cherdano, on Jan 26 2007, 01:26 PM, said:

Whew, are we all influenced by the follow-up problem to prefer pass?

Wouldnt the follow up problem make you wish you had bid 2C? Now you have to guess between 3 and 4 clubs...

Sorry to "name drop" but if you think pass is crazy then you should know that garozzo passed at the table (my counterpart), bob hamman said he would pass, and my dad said he would pass, and bart bramley said he would pass..

I gave it to them live so they were not influenced by the follow up auction (ie, it goes 1C 1S to you... "pass" ok 2S X pass to you "...").

I have no qualms with 2C really, and think its a perfectly fine bid, but it's hard for me to understand such strong objections either way on a hand with marginal values, length in the opponents suit, and only 4 trumps.

Anyways.. results..

If you bid 4C you get to game, at the table I just bid 3C but my partner still bid on with 3D so we got to game, and at the other table garozzo jumped to 5C. I must say I felt very cautious when perhaps the best player ever bid TWO levels higher than me.

I don't think it's crazy. I'm just surprised that so many great players (you included) would choose not to make a bid (2♣) that shows pretty much exactly what you have. If I passed on this hand I would think I was doing something anti-field.

You could convince me that pass is better than 3♣.

[hrothgar]

I seem to be the only one who advocates an immediate 3♣ bid over 1♠ while a lot of folks (including a very expert panel that Justin was able to poll) shied away from a 2♣ raise).

Curious what folks think opener's experted club count is given my hand and the auction to date. To me, the crucial point about the hand is my stiff Diamond. There are a lot of Diamonds in the other three hands. The more Diamonds that partner holds, the higher his expected Club length...

Personally, I think that the odds that partner has three clubs are exceedingly small. As usual, I want to bid the limit of my hand ASAP.

[Halo]

I bid 2C first time round and 3C now.

Why not?

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Jan 26 2007, 11:38 PM, said:

Richard, I agree that partner having 3 clubs is (almost) impossible given the spade lengths around the table, but partner has know way to know that you know this. The minimum amount of clubs for a 3C bid should not change based on what you know from your own hand about partners lengths, it should be fixed (so he knows what to expect from your hand). He won't expect you to be bidding his length for him. I'm not saying anything is right or wrong, but partner will expect at least 5 clubs from you for your jump. Of course that doesn't mean you can't bid it with 4.

Hi Justin

I understand your point, however, I'm not sure that I agree with it:

Lets consider two different strategies for raising partner

Strategy A:

1. Calculate partner's minimum possible trump holding

2. Raise partner to the appropriate level using your favorite metric (LTT, "Working Points", whatever you prefer)

3. Opener can re-raise aggressively with extra length

Strategy B:

1. Make your reasonable estimation of partner's expected trump holding given your hand and the bidding so far

2. Raise partner to the appropriate level using your favorite metric

3. Opener needs to be much more conservative re-raising since partner have already bid guess at opener's distirbutional values.

I'd argue that strategy B creates a lot more pressure at the table. Some of the pressure will be place on the opponents, who will often be forced a level higher in the bidding. Some of that pressure will be placed on opener who will often face some rather nasty decisions.

I'm not sure whether Strategy A is better that B, or vice versa. However, personally, I think that B has a lot going for it. I think that there are going to be more situations where the opponents make the wrong decision over my 3♣ raise than partner misguesses over the opponents 3M partial.