[CSGibson]

Scoring: IMP

(1♥)-?

---

I got dealt this weak freak and had no clue how to bid it. I am curious what the majority of people would do. I considered:

2♣
2N
5♣

Any thoughts on what the strategy should be with a hand like this?

[mike777]

Pass....no problem yet.

[rogerclee]

5♣

[P_Marlowe]

4C.

In view of the vulnerability, but 5C is ok as well.

4C would allow you to bid 4NT on your next turn,
which some play as unusual, in the actual situation
showing a 2-suiter, but the 2nd suit being higher
ranking and shorter.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[andy_h]

Seems like this hand's all about clubs. But diamonds could be in the picture. Think I'd bid 2NT

[dicklont]

We are vul. they´re not.
This makes me cautious, 2NT will do.
Green/red I would bid 5♣.

[Edmunte1]

4♣

[655321]

5♣ for me.

Second choice: 2NT followed by bidding a lot of clubs next.

[SoTired]

4 or 5C. Never pass.

It is my opinion that freaks like this is what decides world championships. Everybody knows how to bid normal games and slams with normal hands, but it is hands like this where nobody has any bidding rules nor experience that really differentiates a great player from another great player.

[jdonn]

mike777, on Aug 7 2008, 01:31 AM, said:

Pass....no problem yet.

What do you do when you drive your car into a river?

Stay in the car, no problem yet.

[rbforster]

I think he meant that high level bidding judgment is one of the last things people learn (mainly through experience, and these rare hands don't come up often enough to make it easy to learn/generalize from experience). Hence it is one of the areas that experts are considerably better at and more experienced in that aspiring players.

That said, I don't think these things come up often enough to matter in the typical serious event.

[brianshark]

Thankfully, winners win by consistently doing the right thing on every single board, most of which are pushy games and slams, and run of the mill part scores, and only the occasional high level guess which is all to often a guess. But freaks like this will never come up and will never decide world championships.

[cherdano]

If you want to describe, I think 3♣ followed by 4N is much better than 2N followed by bidding clubs - the latter sounds like a 6=7 or 5=6 or 5=7 to me, whereas the former sounds like mostly clubs.

[brianshark]

Oh, with regards to the given problem, I'm going serious consideration to 4NT in spite of the vulnerability for some reason. I realise that may be really silly if pard is 3=2 in the minors, but I can't help myself!

[mikeh]

brianshark, on Aug 7 2008, 11:09 AM, said:

Thankfully, winners win by consistently doing the right thing on every single board, most of which are pushy games and slams, and run of the mill part scores, and only the occasional high level guess which is all to often a guess. But freaks like this will never come up and will never decide world championships.

I know this thread is not about what decides world championships, but it is wrong to say that WCs are never decided by freaks.. ask Hamman about his lead against a grand slam with two major suit Aces...one of which would have cashed. If memory serves (which it may not), his choice of the other Ace led to France winning the championship that year.

As for my call: I make a bid I rarely make: 4♣. I would bid 5♣ at any other vulnerability.

4♣ intending to bid 4N is too rich for me.. it is equivalent (in terms of risk) to bidding 5♣ now... the added edge of bringing diamonds into play is offset, for me, by the extra bidding space we afford the opps.

No number of unusual notrump (2 or 4) makes sense to me: I'd far, far rather play a 8-2 than a 5-3 and maybe even than a 5-4.

[grrigg]

I think I would just bid 5♣. I am not sure I trust myself to pass, if they stop in 4 , so might as well make it as hard for them as possible immediately.

[han]

I tend to bid one more than mikeh so 5♣ must be my bid.

[jdonn]

I tend to bid one less than han, but 5♣ is still my bid.