[catch22]

Scoring: IMP

---

1C*-(1S)-?

1C is either natural or 11-14 balanced

What would you bid?

[rogerclee]

Doubling first and then bidding a very large number of clubs seems like a reasonable description of my hand and will get us to the best spot the most often.

[han]

5C for me too please, double is really bad bridge imo.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Jun 22 2008, 02:55 AM, said:

five fkin clubs GO TO HELL OPPS

I agree with the english translation of this post. Also agree double is pointless, will partner knowing we have four hearts help him evaluate, and then weigh it against the space you give opponents...

[kenrexford]

Clubs.

I'd psych 1NT before I'd introduce hearts.

[655321]

Agree with 5♣

[gnasher]

When I first saw this hand I also said 5♣. However, if "natural or 11-14 balanced" means that it might be a 4=3=4=2 shape, I think that's too much.

I have an ace opposite an opening bid, and all the suits are breaking badly. I'd rather try to talk them into bidding a non-making game than force them to double me for two or three down. 4♣ for me.

[han]

How do you know all the suits are breaking badly? Maybe spades or diamonds are breaking 1-1. Maybe partner is 3-4-3-3, does that count as breaking badly? Should partner bid one more when he has 3 instead of 2 clubs? I think it is very pessimistic to assume partner has the worst possible shape and bid accordingly.

[gnasher]

han, on Jun 22 2008, 02:22 PM, said:

How do you know all the suits are breaking badly? Maybe spades or diamonds are breaking 1-1. Maybe partner is 3-4-3-3, does that count as breaking badly? Should partner bid one more when he has 3 instead of 2 clubs? I think it is very pessimistic to assume partner has the worst possible shape and bid accordingly.

True: I should have said that any suit which can break badly for them probably is doing. That's so unless the bad breaks we're talking about are of the something-0 variety.

I'm not assuming that partner is 4=3=4=2 - I was just pointing out that this is one of his possible shapes. I don't necessarily want to be in 5♣ every time partner has three of them. For instance, if he has a normal-looking Kxx Axx QJ10x Kxx we probably want to defend 4♠.

[gnasher]

I've just done a small simulation of this hand, generating 20 hands and deciding by looking at them what was likely to happen to 4S and 5C. The results were:

4S & 5C both fail:   10
4S makes:   5
5C makes:   3
5C makes, but they will bid 4S and opener will bid 5C:   1
West's hand isn't a 1♠ overcall:   1

Even if we assume that the opponents never misjudge, the gain from bidding 5♣ when it's right is 2-3 times the loss from bidding it when it's wrong. The only people who can misjudge over 5♣ are the opponents, so my simulation suggests that 5♣ is much better than 4♣.

Of course, everyone except me already knew that.

The hands are here:
http://www.smohandes.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/...nds20080622.txt

And the code I used to generate them is here:
http://www.smohandes.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/...ode20080622.txt

[nige1]

catch22, on Jun 22 2008, 01:59 AM, said:

Dealer: North Vul: E/W Scoring: IMP

♠ 5 ♥ T983 ♦ 8 ♣ AQT9842

1C*-(1S)-?
1C is either natural or 11-14 balanced
What would you bid?

IMO 5♣ = 10, 3♠ = 8, 3♣ = 7, 4♣ = 5, 2♣ = 3, _P = 2, _X =1
_X may pick off opponent's suit but still has major drawbacks, for example

• It's not clear what to lead against 1♠X
  
• It maximises opponents' bidding space to explore for a ♠/♦slam.

[andy_h]

<3 5♣. I find it funny how I have to go through these trends. For instance, when you first start playing you'd think oo partner's open clubs and I have 7 of them so I will bid them! But then soon you're taught that you should X first as you can support clubs later as your major fit might be lost or you've denied them by preempting rather than X-ing (obviously this hand is of an extreme example, but when you're taught these kind of rules, you sometimes won't know what is an exception to it). But now, I'm in the preempt preempt to the max zone, I'm not too afraid of losing the heart fit as this hand looks like it's all about clubs and if it's our hand we may still uncover the heart fit if it's necessary.
Or maybe I'm just weird..

[jtfanclub]

gnasher, on Jun 22 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

I've just done a small simulation of this hand, generating 20 hands and deciding by looking at them what was likely to happen to 4S and 5C.  The results were:

4S & 5C both fail:   10
4S makes:   5
5C makes:   3
5C makes, but they will bid 4S and opener will bid 5C:   1
West's hand isn't a 1♠ overcall:   1

IMHO, you have to add a 6th category...

4♠ is going down, 5♣ is down 1.

At this vulnerability, if you go down 1 doubled, that can still be a neutral board (or a pretty darned good board if you're playing MPs).

[gnasher]

jtfanclub, on Jun 23 2008, 05:46 PM, said:

IMHO, you have to add a 6th category...

4♠ is going down, 5♣ is down 1.

At this vulnerability, if you go down 1 doubled, that can still be a neutral board (or a pretty darned good board if you're playing MPs).

At IMPs, scoring -100 instead of +100 costs 5 IMPs regardless of whether teammates scored -100, +100 or a surprising +140. That isn't neutral: it's a small loss, as implied by my previous post ("the gain from bidding 5♣ when it's right is 2-3 times the loss from bidding it when it's wrong").

For -100 to be a reasonable score at matchpoints, at least half the field must chose either to defend 3♠ or to bid 6♣ with my hand. Why would I be playing in such an event?

[jtfanclub]

gnasher, on Jun 23 2008, 12:25 PM, said:

At IMPs, scoring -100 instead of +100 costs 5 IMPs regardless of whether teammates scored -100, +100 or a surprising +140. That isn't neutral: it's a small loss, as implied by my previous post ("the gain from bidding 5♣ when it's right is 2-3 times the loss from bidding it when it's wrong").

For -100 to be a reasonable score at matchpoints, at least half the field must chose either to defend 3♠ or to bid 6♣ with my hand. Why would I be playing in such an event?

?

Your partner opened 1♣. I suspect that will be very anti-field.

Let's suppose he has a balanced 11, and passes.

Bidding goes 1♠, 3♣ from you (agree?), 3♠. Wouldn't you and your partner let them play it there? Why push them into a makeable game?

Let's suppose he has a balanced 12-14 with 4+ diamonds and 3- clubs (seems likely given your hand).

Bidding goes 1♦, 1♠, 3♣ from you (agree?), 3♠. Again, why would either of you want to push them into game? I don't even play 4♣ there as natural.

I don't think it's particularly unlikely that the field will be playing 3♠.

[Trinidad]

I would bid 3♠. That gives partner the possibility to bid 3NT with a softish hand.

Rik

[gnasher]

jtfanclub, on Jun 23 2008, 06:42 PM, said:

Your partner opened 1♣.  I suspect that will be very anti-field.

That would depend on where the field was. For the sake of argument, let's assume that this is a field where that is so.

Quote

Let's suppose he has a balanced 11, and passes. 

Bidding goes 1♠, 3♣ from you (agree?)

Of course not. At favourable, facing a passed partner, it wouldn't occur to me to bid only 3♣ with this.

Quote

Let's suppose he has a balanced 12-14 with 4+ diamonds and 3- clubs (seems likely given your hand).

Bidding goes 1♦, 1♠, 3♣ from you (agree?),

Not particularly. For many people this would be a fit bid. Double is also more attractive after a 1♦ opening. I agree that some players will bid 3♣.

Quote

3♠.  Again, why would either of you want to push them into game?  I don't even play 4♣ there as natural.

You have my sympathy. Why should we assume that the entire field is handicapped in this way?

If a non-vulnerable North-South can make 10 tricks in clubs, and East-West can make nine tricks in spades, it's reasonable to assume that in a decent field most North-Souths will compete to 4♣ over 3♠.

[jtfanclub]

gnasher, on Jun 23 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

If a non-vulnerable North-South can make 10 tricks in clubs, and East-West can make nine tricks in spades, it's reasonable to assume that in a decent field most North-Souths will compete to 4♣ over 3♠.

If you think that your opponents will always find the right contract regardless of your pre-empts, then why do you pre-empt?

Let me ask you this, then. Auction goes P-P. Are you opening this hand 4♣? And if not, if the auction goes

(P) -P- 3♣ X
(P) (3♠)

Are you going to raise your own pre-empt?

This is certainly a viable auction. Your partner could have a balanced 11 which lots of people won't open. Your RHO might have a hand good enough for an overcall, but not good enough for an opening. But you're claiming that on an auction like this, you can judge that the opps can make 3♠ but not 4 and you can make 4♣ but not 5?!

Or how about the Precision players, when your partner has the stronger hand?

1NT (13-15) 2♠

OK, so now you each have half the count. Feel like a 4♣ bid?

If not, auction goes

1NT (2♠) -*- (3♠) *something under 3♠
-P- -P-

How confident are you that you're making 4♣ and they're making 3♠?

How about the 10-13 NTers?
1♣ (1♠)

Now your partner almost certainly has 14-19 hcp balanced. Feel like bidding above 3NT? When the auction continues like the others, how confident are you that 3♠ is making?

And then there's the 4 card major boys....
1♥ (1♠)

Not sure where we're going to end up here, but I'm guessing it won't be 4♣.

It just wouldn't occur to me to assume that on a hand that the opponents are unlikely to bid the same and is likely to include lots of interference that both sides will be able to find the par contract. In fact, my whole point of pre-empting is to hope that they won't find the par contract.

[gnasher]

jtfanclub, on Jun 23 2008, 11:48 PM, said:

If you think that your opponents will always find the right contract regardless of your pre-empts, then why do you pre-empt?

In all the auctions that you posited, North-South are the side that is preempting. I have searched carefully through my comments, and I can't find anything that might suggest that I think East-West are going to bid to the right contract in the face of North-South's preemption.

Quote

Auction goes P-P.  Are you opening this hand 4♣

I might open five, but I expect that 4♣ would be a common call.

Quote

(P)  -P-  3♣ X
(P)  (3♠)

Are you going to raise your own pre-empt?

If North-South's style is for a 3rd-seat green 3♣ opening to show a chunky 7-4, I imagine that most of the time that 10 tricks are available in clubs, opener will be raising.

I am, however, having to take my imagination to places it has never been before. Are there really people who would open only 3♣?

Quote

NT (13-15) 2♠

OK, so now you each have half the count.  Feel like a 4♣ bid?

Almost everyone who responded to this thread advocated a 5♣ bid in an auction where opener almost certainly had 11-14 balanced and the next hand had overcalled in spades. I'd be surprised if many of them would do something different opposite 13-15 balanced.

I'm afraid I didn't bother reading the rest of your auctions.

Quote

It just wouldn't occur to me to assume that on a hand that the opponents are unlikely to bid the same and is likely to include lots of interference that both sides will be able to find the par contract.

I didn't say that both sides would be able to find the par contract. I said that if East-West are making exactly 9 tricks and North-South are making exactly 10-tricks, there will be few tables where East-West are allowed to pay 3♠. For this to happen:
- North-South must not already have bid 4♣ or 5♣
- East-West must try to stop in 3♠
- North-South must not then compete to 4♣.

It may well be that you play in events where this happens enough to turn 5♣x-1 into a "neutral" score. I just don't want to play in such events myself.