[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

1♣ (P)

---

How would the bidding go here using CrissCross, Justins method and Inverted minors? Do you make a forcing raise with 4♣? (On this hand my partner responded 3nt+1)

tyia
jb

[mike777]

KIss
1c=3nt
p

[MikeRJ]

I think I would keep it fairly simple too, but with:

1C - 1D
1NT-3NT

It is perhaps fortuitous that this sequence gets the contract played the right way up.

Mike

[kenrexford]

I think I would keep it even simpler than that.

1NT-P-4NT-P-P-P.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

jillybean2 1C-4C is not forcing in standard type methods. It is a hand much like the one that raises one major to four.

Unless you see some great advantage in the crisscross method, I suggest that you play inverted minors. A good inverted minor method should get you to good contracts. The crisscross bidding appears to use up a great deal of space on hands that you really should be using to exchange information at low levels.

MikeRJ bidding looks very good with the example hands. The 1D replay saves bidding space and partner shows a balanced hand with modest values. That information appears to suggest 3NT as a final contract.

1of a suit-3NT showing 16-18(or whatever range you pick) is often listed as a 4333 type hand since it uses up so much space.

Jumping to 3NT 'without' a heart stopper might survive on many hands, however, it can sometimes result in a very silly 3NT going down while a game/slam in a minor is much better.

Regards,
Robert

[helene_t]

What Robert said.

If you play 4-card majors you might start with a forcing raise, but most 5-card-majorists require 5-card support. Not all, I know of a couple of Dutch top pairs who raise with four (even though they open 1♣ on a doubleton) and then subsequently decide if they have a real fit. This can be an advantage if opps interfere. First bidding diamonds and then cuebidding, doubling or raising clubs after opps have interfered may sound like real diamonds and secondary club support, while this North hand (let alone a 3334) doesn't want to play in diamonds at all.

[Walddk]

1♣ - 2♣
2N* - 3N

* If you play 2NT as 12-14 balanced (easy to remember). Some let 2♦ take care of that hand.

Roland

[Fluffy]

Whatever the methods I prefer to bid 1♦ than make a forcing raise, saves space and I am confident in that area.

Mike's bidding is perfect.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

using the method Justin described (I dont play them myself):

1C - 1D (1)
1NT (2) - 3NT (3)

(1) you have no assurance of a fit, i.e. 3D
as a forcing raise of clubs is out
(2) 12-14, and shows at least 4 clubs
(3) holding a bal. hand and (half) stoppers in
the mayors, no need to look for anything else

Playing inv. minor raises, the bidding would be
the same.

The important point: forcing minor raises dont come up very
often, you usually have other bids, because your main focus
is still looking for a mayor suit fit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jillybean]

Robert, on Jun 21 2007, 10:04 PM, said:

jillybean2 1C-4C is not forcing in standard type methods. It is a hand much like the one that raises one major to four.

Correction, do you make a forcing raise holding 4♣'s ? 1♣:4♣ is nuts

[blackshoe]

jillybean2, on Jun 22 2007, 07:02 AM, said:

Correction, do you make a forcing raise holding 4♣'s ? 1♣:4♣ is nuts

Some people specify that in the auction 1♣-(p)-4♣ the raise is RKCB for clubs. Not appropriate on the given hand, of course.

Turns out that, even though your agreement is that a 1♣ opening could be on as few as 3 cards, your partner who opened 1♣ is far more likely to have 5 or 6 cards than 3 or 4 in the suit. So raising on "only" four cards isn't off the wall.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on Jun 22 2007, 07:52 AM, said:

Turns out that, even though your agreement is that a 1♣ opening could be on as few as 3 cards, your partner who opened 1♣ is far more likely to have 5 or 6 cards than 3 or 4 in the suit. So raising on "only" four cards isn't off the wall.

Im south and opened 1♣, how should north know I am more likely to have 5-6 ♣'s here?

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean2, on Jun 22 2007, 09:56 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 22 2007, 07:52 AM, said:

Turns out that, even though your agreement is that a 1♣ opening could be on as few as 3 cards, your partner who opened 1♣ is far more likely to have 5 or 6 cards than 3 or 4 in the suit. So raising on "only" four cards isn't off the wall.

Im south and opened 1♣, how should north know I am more likely to have 5-6 ♣'s here?

The probability is around 95% or better that you hold 4+ clubs.

You just need to ask which kind of hands are affected:

You will have 3 clubs in case of a 4-3-3-3 distribution, the
4 card suit being a mayor.

http://bridgehands.c...istribution.htm

The probabilit for this distribution is 10%, i.e. since only half of the
cases are relevant, you get 5%

Remove the NT openers and so on.

The above numbers may not be 100% correct, but I thinks you get
the message.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I thought the number lower, but this comes from the fact that
most of the time people require a 4 card suit for 1 diamond.

[mikeh]

jillybean2, on Jun 22 2007, 09:56 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 22 2007, 07:52 AM, said:

Turns out that, even though your agreement is that a 1♣ opening could be on as few as 3 cards, your partner who opened 1♣ is far more likely to have 5 or 6 cards than 3 or 4 in the suit. So raising on "only" four cards isn't off the wall.

Im south and opened 1♣, how should north know I am more likely to have 5-6 ♣'s here?

I don't think this is close to being right. Given that we play 5 card majors, and that we open 1♣ on 4333 and 3433, the odds are good that a 1♣ bid is based on 3 or 4 rather than on 5 or 6. Now, if we play a weak notrump, the odds change.. I don't know if the long suit becomes the more probable holding, but when we play strong notrump, I am certain that the 3 or 4 card holdings are the most common.

In any event, I would not raise clubs here at all. There is no reason to do so, playing inverted, criss-cross or any other method.

Responder has a flat hand.. a notrump oriented hand. However, jumping to 3N is idiotic. Give partner AKx x Axx Qxxxxx, and he has zero reason to bid over 3N. Nice contract.

1♦ is a good, sensible start. You have a 4 card suit, it is forcing for one round, and you will learn a lot about partner's hand by his rebid. He will, on the hand, bid 1N, showing 11-14 or 12-14, depending on your propensities in opening seat with a balanced 11. In any event, you now know that slam is out of reach and that 3N is the correct destination: so you close the auction in 3N.

I see many, many players jump to 3N with these responding hands, and it almost always works out. I am not saying it works 'well' .. but the truth is that with a balanced 16 opposite an opening hand, partner will usually deliver a ♥ stop or enough length that they can't run the suit. The fact that 3N usually works is not an argument in its favour.

The main street near my home is usually free of traffic late at night... so if I closed my eyes and just walked out into the road at midnight, I'd probably make it to the other side. However, the smart pedestrian keeps his or her eyes open no matter what time of night it is. The smart bridge player does not jump to 3N, over 1♣, with QJ tight in ♥s.

[FrancesHinden]

I second everything mikeh said on the auction.

MikeRJ said "It is perhaps fortuitous that this sequence gets the contract played the right way up."

The point is that it isn't fortuitous at all, responder has a very limited supply of tenaces and is much more suited to be dummy than declarer in 3NT.

[jdonn]

P_Marlowe, on Jun 22 2007, 10:34 AM, said:

The probability is around 95% or better that you hold 4+ clubs.

You just need to ask which kind of hands are affected:

You will have 3 clubs in case of a 4-3-3-3 distribution, the
4 card suit being a mayor.

http://bridgehands.c...istribution.htm

The probabilit for this distribution is 10%, i.e.  since only half of the
cases are relevant, you get 5%

Remove the NT openers and so on.

The above numbers may not be 100% correct, but I thinks you get
the message.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I thought the number lower, but this comes from the fact that
most of the time people require a 4 card suit for 1 diamond.

You are misinterpreting badly. You claim partner opens 1♣ holding exactly 3 clubs on 5% of all bridge hands *where he opens 1♣*, but what you actually found is partner opens 1♣ holding exactly 3 clubs on 5% of all bridge hands *where he opens any suit*. See the difference? Also you forgot 4423 shape.

Let me assume a style where 4-4 in the minors opens 1♦ 1/2 the time. So I get
4333 that will open 1♣ with 3 of them = 5.25%
4432 that will open 1♣ with 3 of them = 1.80%

4 card 1♣ openings = 13.13%
5 card 1♣ openings = 10.05%
6+ card 1♣ openings = 5.24%

So (ignoring what a 1NT opening would do) you open 1♣ with 3 of them on about 20% of your 1♣ openings. It would be lower if I took 1NT openings into account, but it's a far cry from the 5% you claimed, even given that you were just estimating.

[FrancesHinden]

As for how many clubs opener has...

If you have a 3244, and partner has a 1C opening shape (open 1D with 4-4 in the minors, open 1C without 4 diamonds), he is about 65% to have 4+ clubs and 30% to have 5+.

If you open 1D on 4432 and 4333/3433 this changes to 89% and 42%

This doesn't include any HCP calculation, his actual percentage for 5+ clubs higher as a share of the hands without 4 clubs would have opened 1NT (or 2NT).

[P_Marlowe]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 22 2007, 11:50 AM, said:

As for how many clubs opener has...

If you have a 3244, and partner has a 1C opening shape (open 1D with 4-4 in the minors, open 1C without 4 diamonds), he is about 65% to have 4+ clubs and 30% to have 5+. 
<snip>

Which makes it around 95% that he has 4+ .
The 4432 shape may lower the number somewhat to 93%
(I missed that shape, and it contributes a liitle less than 2%),
but rounding kicks in as well.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: HCP calculation will lower the number again, but than hands
with lower HP are more likely than hands with high HCP, and
those high HCP hands wont contribute a whole lot to change
the 95% number dramatic.

[kenrexford]

This discussion has delved into the absurd.

However, I do have one question for the odds generators. Why has the argument changed? The initial point seemed to be the odds of having 5+ clubs instead of 3-4 clubs. However, the discussion that follows concerns the odds of 3 clubs instead of 4+ clubs.

Not to mention the irrelevance of all of this.

The relevant question is not the percentage of hand with 3, 4, 5, 6, or more clubs. The relevant question seems to be the chances of some number of clubs when slam is possible but not obvious. That brings you into hands with about 15-17 HCP's. When Opener has about 15-17 HCP's, he will never have 3 clubs, as he woul open 1NT. When Opener has 4 clubs, he must be 4441, not 4432/4333, because he would open 1NT, and some of the 4441's would possibly be opened 1♦. That throws all of this nonsense into an even more humorous light.

[jdonn]

P_Marlowe, on Jun 22 2007, 11:58 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 22 2007, 11:50 AM, said:

As for how many clubs opener has...

If you have a 3244, and partner has a 1C opening shape (open 1D with 4-4 in the minors, open 1C without 4 diamonds), he is about 65% to have 4+ clubs and 30% to have 5+. 
<snip>

Which makes it around 95% that he has 4+ .

Lol no! The 65% encompasses the 30%. Frances is saying it's 35% partner has 2 or 3 clubs when you take responder's shape into account, if you are someone who opens 1♣ with 4432. Look what Frances wrote, 65% for 4+ clubs, not for 4 clubs which is how you are reading it.