[Ant590]

Both times you are sitting north playing 'standard' club bridge players...
5cM, weak NT, not 2/1

1)

Scoring: MP

---

(1♥) - dbl - (4♥) - ?

2)

Scoring: MP

---

1♥ - (pass) - 2♣ - (pass)
3♥ - (pass) - ?

[jdonn]

1. 5♣ is not guaranteed to work, but isn't it really obvious?
2. This depends largely on agreements. If 3♥ sets trumps and doesn't show extras I'll bid 4♥, if it sets trumps and does show extras I'll bid 4♣, if it doesn't set trumps I'll bid 3NT.

[ArtK78]

1) I don't know if 5♣ is so obvious. 6♣ could be the winning action. Partner could have a hand with a lot of controls and very mediocre clubs and we could easily have 12 tricks. He will not move over 5♣ holding:

AKxx
Ax
AKxx
xxx

or

AKQx
xx
Axxx
xxx

or any similar hand where I have 7 club tricks and he has 5 tricks.

Even:

AKQx
xxx
Axx
xxx

a hand on which he might overcall 1♠ rather than double, is good enough to produce 12 tricks.

So I am not convinced that 5♣ is obvious. Even 7♣ or 7NT might be the winning action and it is quite possible that partner will have a headache over your 5♣ bid. Give him:

AKQx
Ax
Axxx
xxx

Wouldn't you be bidding 5♣ if you held:

xx
xx
KQx
QJTxxx?

2) Agree with Jdonn. Your action depends on the partnership agreement concerning the 3♥ call.

[rogerclee]

ArtK78, on Sep 23 2008, 11:57 AM, said:

1) I don't know if 5♣ is so obvious.  6♣ could be the winning action.  Partner could have a hand with a lot of controls and very mediocre clubs and we could easily have 12 tricks.  He will not move over 5♣ holding:

AKxx
Ax
AKxx
xxx

or

AKQx
xx
Axxx
xxx

or any similar hand where I have 7 club tricks and he has 5 tricks.

Even:

AKQx
xxx
Axx
xxx

a hand on which he might overcall 1♠ rather than double, is good enough to produce 12 tricks.

So I am not convinced that 5♣ is obvious.  Even 7♣ or 7NT might be the winning action and it is quite possible that partner will have a headache over your 5♣ bid.  Give him:

AKQx
Ax
Axxx
xxx

Wouldn't you be bidding 5♣ if you held:

xx
xx
KQx
QJTxxx?

2)  Agree with Jdonn.  Your action depends on the partnership agreement concerning the 3♥ call.

Art, this is an egregious abuse of using example hands.

[ArtK78]

I have a permit to use example hands.

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on Sep 23 2008, 01:57 PM, said:

1) I don't know if 5♣ is so obvious.  6♣ could be the winning action.  Partner could have a hand with a lot of controls and very mediocre clubs and we could easily have 12 tricks.  He will not move over 5♣ holding:

AKxx
Ax
AKxx
xxx

or

AKQx
xx
Axxx
xxx

or any similar hand where I have 7 club tricks and he has 5 tricks.

Even:

AKQx
xxx
Axx
xxx

a hand on which he might overcall 1♠ rather than double, is good enough to produce 12 tricks.

So I am not convinced that 5♣ is obvious.  Even 7♣ or 7NT might be the winning action and it is quite possible that partner will have a headache over your 5♣ bid.  Give him:

AKQx
Ax
Axxx
xxx

Wouldn't you be bidding 5♣ if you held:

xx
xx
KQx
QJTxxx?

2)  Agree with Jdonn.  Your action depends on the partnership agreement concerning the 3♥ call.

Your permit for using example hands is in jeopardy of being revoked for reckless abuse.

You want an example hand? KQxx x KQxx QJxx... your call after a 1♥ opening bid on your left. Edit: on your right

How'd you like 6♣ now?

My 5♣ will go down, but it won't be doubled.

As it is, 5♣ is obvious... and, yes, it may not result in the optimum contract. What's your point?

As for the 2nd hand, I agree with josh

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Sep 23 2008, 02:18 PM, said:

I have a permit to use example hands.

You have merely proved we need stricter example hand control laws. AKxx Ax AKxx xxx??? Shows what I know, I thought the knock on 5♣ was it might go down! Seriously, your post is one of the most ridiculous I have seen in quite a while.

[TimG]

mikeh, on Sep 23 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

You want an example hand? KQxx x KQxx QJxx... your call after a 1♥ opening bid on your left.

Can I wait to find out what partner and RHO do before deciding on my call?

[rogerclee]

TimG, on Sep 23 2008, 01:03 PM, said:

mikeh, on Sep 23 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

You want an example hand? KQxx x KQxx QJxx... your call after a 1♥ opening bid on your left.

Can I wait to find out what partner and RHO do before deciding on my call?

OK, YOU WIN.

[mikeh]

TimG, on Sep 23 2008, 03:03 PM, said:

mikeh, on Sep 23 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

You want an example hand? KQxx x KQxx QJxx... your call after a 1♥ opening bid on your left.

Can I wait to find out what partner and RHO do before deciding on my call?

This proves that at least one person reads my posts

[sathyab]

jdonn, on Sep 23 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

2. This depends largely on agreements. If 3♥ sets trumps and doesn't show extras I'll bid 4♥, if it sets trumps and does show extras I'll bid 4♣, if it doesn't set trumps I'll bid 3NT.

Anyone know what the "standard" 2/1 agreement is, assuming that there's such a thing as standard 2/1, you know the kind when you say "2/1, UDCA, A from AK and 3/5 vs suits pd?".

Andrew Tannenbaum, in one of his books on Computer Networking said "The great thing about standards is that here are so many to choose from". Sounds like a bridge player to me.

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on Sep 23 2008, 08:27 PM, said:

1. 5♣ is not guaranteed to work, but isn't it really obvious?
2. This depends largely on agreements. If 3♥ sets trumps and doesn't show extras I'll bid 4♥, if it sets trumps and does show extras I'll bid 4♣, if it doesn't set trumps I'll bid 3NT.

I hate those "I definately agree"-posts.

This however really sums it all up. So:

I definately agree.

[rogerclee]

sathyab, on Sep 23 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

Anyone know what the "standard" 2/1 agreement is, assuming that there's such a thing as standard 2/1, you know the kind when you say "2/1, UDCA, A from AK and 3/5 vs suits pd?".

Around these parts, it sets trumps and shows extras.

[OleBerg]

sathyab, on Sep 23 2008, 10:22 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 23 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

2. This depends largely on agreements. If 3♥ sets trumps and doesn't show extras I'll bid 4♥, if it sets trumps and does show extras I'll bid 4♣, if it doesn't set trumps I'll bid 3NT.

Anyone know what the "standard" 2/1 agreement is, assuming that there's such a thing as standard 2/1, you know the kind when you say "2/1, UDCA, A from AK and 3/5 vs suits pd?".

Andrew Tannenbaum, in one of his books on Computer Networking said "The great thing about standards is that here are so many to choose from". Sounds like a bridge player to me.

I have double-standards. Twice as good!

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Sep 23 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Sep 23 2008, 02:18 PM, said:

I have a permit to use example hands.

You have merely proved we need stricter example hand control laws. AKxx Ax AKxx xxx??? Shows what I know, I thought the knock on 5♣ was it might go down! Seriously, your post is one of the most ridiculous I have seen in quite a while.

I am so glad I could provide you with some entertainment.

It just goes to show what kind of variance is at play in this problem. Depending on partner's takeout double, you could make anywhere from 9 to 13 tricks in clubs.

Clearly, bidding clubs is obvious. Bidding 5♣ is certainly reasonable, and it is probably the percentage call. But I am not convinced that bidding 5♣ specifically is obvious.

[Lobowolf]

OleBerg, on Sep 23 2008, 03:22 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 23 2008, 08:27 PM, said:

1. 5♣ is not guaranteed to work, but isn't it really obvious?
2. This depends largely on agreements. If 3♥ sets trumps and doesn't show extras I'll bid 4♥, if it sets trumps and does show extras I'll bid 4♣, if it doesn't set trumps I'll bid 3NT.

I hate those "I definately agree"-posts.

This however really sums it all up. So:

I definately agree.

Lest Josh think I'm deliberately contrary and argumentative, I agree with this (these) post(s) in its (their) entirety. Except for the part about being averse to "I agree" posts.

[cherdano]

Bidding 5♣ is specifically obvious. Making 6♣ is possible, but clearly against the odds (and obviously so). Even if that wasn't obvious to begin with, it should convince you that your example hands (for a one-level takeout double) contained 8 controls or the magic ace PLUS the magic AKQ.

[matmat]

ArtK78, on Sep 23 2008, 02:18 PM, said:

I have a permit to use example hands.

that permit may need to be revoked. who do we contact about this?

I partially agree though, I never make a takeout double of 1♥ in second seat unless i have 3 aces and 5 kings.

[matmat]

ArtK78, on Sep 23 2008, 03:34 PM, said:

Clearly, bidding clubs is obvious.  Bidding 5♣ is certainly reasonable, and it is probably the percentage call.  But I am not convinced that bidding 5♣ specifically is obvious.

matchpoints
in the long run you are rewarded for taking percentage actions
if you agree that 5♣ is the percentage call, then it is the OBVIOUS call.

[kenrexford]

I'd bid 4NT, which obviously asks partner to bid 7♣ if he has an above-average hand, which I define as all three side Aces, two Kings, three clubs, and the Jack of diamonds. If he has a lesser hand, like missing the diamond Jack, he'll sign off at 6♣. With less than that, he should not even double, so 5♣ shows an "impossible negative" and asks me to consider 7NT if I have the diamond Queen.

Nah!

5♣ -- hope I'm not down too many and/or that it is not phantom.