[jdonn]

ArcLight, on Aug 22 2007, 11:16 AM, said:

This hand can make slam if pard has 0-2 spades, and a few clubs including the K (if RHO has the Q), or KQ. (with 0 its only 35% chance of a 3-3 spaed split)

Something like: (give or take a heart, and maybe add the club Q, with enough clubs, you can play for the drop)

♠ x
♥ x x x x x
♦ x x x
♣ K x x x

It will certainly miss some slams to overcall 4♠, no one denies that. But the examples of partner having Kxxx of clubs and out are silly. Apart from the fact that slam isn't even cold, and apart from the fact that it is only one out of millions of hands partner can have, how is anyone bidding slam anyway? Even if the auction is just at 3♦ when it comes back, which is hardly unlikely, now you want to bid 4♣? Doesn't this sort of leave 7 solid spades on the shelf, especially when now they are very likely to bid to 5♦ and you haven't got a clue whether or not to bid 5♠. And even if partner raises your club bid you haven't got a clue whether to go on to slam or not. Meanwhile if the auction is at something more like 5♦ when it comes back, you are the one with the major guess instead of the opponents. I still think it is wishful thinking to ever hope to get the chance to describe this hand.

All that being said, if I had overcalled 1♠ anyway and been fortunate enough to see the auction go X p 1NT back to me (as in real life) it is clear to me the best rebid isn't 4♣ (a bid which totally under-emphasizes the spades - partner will pass with 1552), it is 2♣. There is a 0% chance the auction will end, and now we have real hopes of finding out what we need if we leave ourselves the room. It may also let the opponents get their bids off their chest at a lower level and let us buy it in 4♠.

[mike777]

1s. try and slow things down if possible with this good 7-5 hand.....

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Aug 22 2007, 08:59 AM, said:

ArcLight, on Aug 22 2007, 11:16 AM, said:

This hand can make slam if pard has 0-2 spades, and a few clubs including the K (if RHO has the Q), or KQ.  (with 0 its only 35% chance of a 3-3 spaed split)

Something like:  (give or take a heart, and maybe add the club Q, with enough clubs, you can play for the drop)

♠ x
♥ x x x x x
♦ x x x
♣ K x x x

It will certainly miss some slams to overcall 4♠, no one denies that. But the examples of partner having Kxxx of clubs and out are silly. Apart from the fact that slam isn't even cold, and apart from the fact that it is only one out of millions of hands partner can have, how is anyone bidding slam anyway? Even if the auction is just at 3♦ when it comes back, which is hardly unlikely, now you want to bid 4♣? Doesn't this sort of leave 7 solid spades on the shelf, especially when now they are very likely to bid to 5♦ and you haven't got a clue whether or not to bid 5♠. And even if partner raises your club bid you haven't got a clue whether to go on to slam or not. Meanwhile if the auction is at something more like 5♦ when it comes back, you are the one with the major guess instead of the opponents. I still think it is wishful thinking to ever hope to get the chance to describe this hand.

All that being said, if I had overcalled 1♠ anyway and been fortunate enough to see the auction go X p 1NT back to me (as in real life) it is clear to me the best rebid isn't 4♣ (a bid which totally under-emphasizes the spades - partner will pass with 1552), it is 2♣. There is a 0% chance the auction will end, and now we have real hopes of finding out what we need if we leave ourselves the room. It may also let the opponents get their bids off their chest at a lower level and let us buy it in 4♠.

Josh - bidding clubs (at whatever level - I like 4; you like 2) isn't to find the magical 5-5 fit or even 5-4 fit. Its to gauge our potential at a high level. If pard fits clubs - you might hear about it over 2♦; I might hear about over 4 red; its to make a determination how high we should bid the hand.

If pard ever raised clubs, I would not sell out to anything below 5♠. I'm not saying 6♣ is biddable, although pard might bid it over 5♥ with a red ace and some club length.

2♣ is a reasonable call; although its ironic that you prefer an immediate 4♠, but if you are choosing 1♠ that you are now tip-toeing with 2♣. There's still some pressure benefit to 4♣ - as well as it being descriptive.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Aug 22 2007, 12:23 PM, said:

2♣ is a reasonable call; although its ironic that you prefer an immediate 4♠, but if you are choosing 1♠ that you are now tip-toeing with 2♣. There's still some pressure benefit to 4♣ - as well as it being descriptive.

Well pretty much I bid 4 because I think I won't be able to describe my hand anyway most of the time. But if I had bid 1 and the auction has gone this way, now I have a real shot at describing my hand. That is my thinking.

If bidding clubs is not to find the fit, why is everyone saying 4♠ is bad since we might have a club slam hehe. Maybe your reasoning is different than that of the others.

[ulven]

I'm certainly not disdaining 4S because I'm afraid of missing a slam. I want to gather info and plan to bid clubs on my next turn at the cheapest level (up to 4C). We want to be able to gauge how the strength is distributed and the degree of fit, because we have the boss suit (as stated in other post).

If you don't understand why this is a better approach, in the long run, then I don't think any more arguments is going to win anybody over. [edit]

[mikeh]

I choose 1♠ for the reasons set out by many of the 1♠ bidders.

However, I do NOT do so because we can make a club slam opposite Kxxxx and out in that suit There is at least a significant chance that, when he holds that hand, the auction will be beyond my comfort level in clubs.

However, while I am not optimistic about slam bidding opposite nothing, there is no rule I have read where partner is broke just because a favourable-vul opp opened 1♦.

And 4♠ will never get us to any slam unless 7 is cold How on earth is partner to play us for a losing trick count of 3.. .and 3 is a pessimistic assessment of AJxxx as having a LTC of 2?

Furthermore, as has been pointed out, there is far more risk of 4♠ [5♦] coming back to me than there is of 1♠ [5♦].

As for bidding 4♠, then doubling, count me out. While I understand the theory, it does not, for me, encompass powerful 7=5 hands with only 1 trick outside the suit.

After 1♠ [5♦] I will bid 5♠. But after 4♠ [5♦] I know so much less about LHO's hand that all possible calls are too random for comfort.

Finally, I once heard a rumour of a partner who held void Axx KJxxx KQxxx.

Yes, we make 4♠

[pbleighton]

Quote

If you don't understand why this is a better approach, in the long run, then I don't think any argument is going to win anybody over.

Because we're so dumb and you're so smart?



Peter

[jdonn]

ulven, on Aug 22 2007, 01:40 PM, said:

If you don't understand why this is a better approach, in the long run, then I don't think any argument is going to win anybody over.

I think the one who will never be won over by any argument is the one who feels it is a fact which approach is better

[ulven]

ulven, on Aug 22 2007, 01:40 PM, said:

I'm certainly not disdaining 4S because I'm afraid of missing a slam. I want to gather info and plan to bid clubs on my next turn at the cheapest level (up to 4C). We want to be able to gauge how the strength is distributed and the degree of fit, because we have the boss suit (as stated in other post).

If you don't understand why this is a better approach, in the long run, then I don't think any argument is going to win anybody over.

Peter and Josh,

My post did contain further arguments why I feel a slower approach is superior.

What I meant by my last paragraph, in maybe sloppy wording, was that when a thread has been active for a while and arguments has been expressed and people still persist with why another way is better then it's unlikely that they will change their mind about it for any reasons. And I feel that this one isn't close regarding the alternatives. Fact? ;-)

It's not about being dumb Peter, it's mainly about having a fixed opinion about the matter and/or not enough experience of a certain type of auctions.

I'll now edit my original post, hopefully making it clearer (english is not my first language).

[jdonn]

It is the fact you say "why this is the best approach" instead of "why I think this is the best approach" or "why I like this approach" which did, and still does, make it look like you think that is fact. You effectively changed your post from "It is a fact 1♠ is better" to "It is a fact 1♠ is better in the long run." If you say it's because of your English (better than I can do in any other language for sure) then ok, but if I can quote you from your last post "I feel that this one isn't close regarding the alternatives." That one was much better

As for repeated postings in one thread, I don't keep repeating the same point - I respond directly to things people say and (hopefully) have a discussion about the points, so I'm not sure why that bothers you. As very often happens, the thread started off as more of a vote with people saying what they think, then evolved into a discussion about the points and reasoning. This is not unusual. Look through threads I post in, I admit to changing my mind or being influenced based on points that other people made, though still not that often, probably more than anyone here.

[ulven]

jdonn, on Aug 23 2007, 02:26 AM, said:

You effectively changed your post from "It is a fact 1♠ is better" to "It is a fact 1♠ is better in the long run."

There's not any difference about those statements to my mind when it comes to bridge. As this is not the laws of nature, where every occurence behaves the same way. For something to be a "bridge fact" it doesn't have to be correct everytime. A double finesse is correct with xxx vs AJT - that's considered a fact by even you I'd believe. That play doesn't work everytime but is does work in the long run making it a statistical correct play. If the statistical edge is significant, it's a "bridge fact" in my terminology. The second statement, cited above, only spells this out by adding "in the long run".

So, yes it's a fact 1S is better.
I'm sure.
I believe.
I think.

Take your pick.

(Yes, I'm in a bit of a foul mood today for other reasons than any posts here ;-))

[benlessard]

Lets clarify some thing before we go further.

R VS W 4 level bid show at least 8.5 tricks and a 3 loser hand is perfectly within range. Like all or most RvsW jumps these are more tacticals bids then classics preempts. This is standard.

A X of 5D show at least 3 defensive tricks or ... some expert have the understanding that X after a preempt or tactical bid (when it cannot be lightner) showed the willingness to compete with exactly 2 Aces So for them X= mean im bidding 5S but just in case you have a defensive tricks i X. But this is a very specific high level not too popular agreement . So unless i have this understanding i will never X 5D with only 2 tricks its just plain wrong.



Bidding 5S over 5D mean i think i have very good chance to make 5S or i think the sac will be cheap (and in don`t think we can set them). Its a close call but don`t think the hand really qualify for this.

Here is why

I have 2 Aces so partner can have a slow trick in D or H and they go down.

Despite my 75 ive still have only 7 spades so 5S can be costly.

+ more importantly I don`t see nothing wrong with passing 5♦.

im not afraid partner wont raise me with 2 aces nor afraid partner wont bid 5s with 3 spades and no defensive tricks


of course partner could have KQ♣ and we make 6. But he can also have those in H and all 5 level contracts goes down also. Looking for specifics cards to get specifics result isnt the way to go when on these kinds of deals since anything can happen. Predicting some exact result with hands like these is an exercice in futility.


The problems with a distributionnal hand is that on its own its has few losers however the chance of having useful cover cards (and ways to know when you have them) are not great.








IMO sandbagging is going slow in the hope that opponents will let you buy a contract cheaper then if you you go the fast way or to hope they X you (in a contract that you expect to make). Going 1♠--3♠--4♠ when you wanted to play 4♠ all along is sandbagging.


Bidding 1♠ in the hope of discouraging opponent from finding a good save is sandbagging.

Bidding 1♠ because your afraid to miss 6 isnt sandbagging.