[whereagles]

Ron, if you use Linux, you might want to try henk uijterwaal's "dealer" program. It's pretty good at doing simulations.

I would help you, but I'm not using Linux at home or office right now.

[cherdano]

benlessard, on Dec 6 2008, 03:02 AM, said:

I think bidding 2S and bidding 4S over 4H will show 3/4 card supports short heart and extras distribution. This a a fair description of my hand.

Sorry, it's not.

I would bid 5♣.

[han]

benlessard, on Dec 6 2008, 04:02 AM, said:

I think bidding 2S and bidding 4S over 4H will show 3/4 card supports short heart and extras distribution. This a a fair description of my hand.

Is this a joke or what?

[benlessard]

Quote

Sorry, it's not

What does it show then ? I mean i hope you dont usually bid 2S and take a sac at the 4 level without distribution.

Anyway if you dont trust your partner to figure it out than you still can bid 2S and if partner doesnt rebid his spades then you might try for 5C. My feeling is that he will rebid them. 5C might be a terrible doubled contract, 4S may be a great contract and its quite possible that neither side may make a 5 level contract.

[jdonn]

benlessard, on Dec 6 2008, 01:43 PM, said:

Quote

Sorry, it's not

What does it show then ? I mean i hope you dont usually bid 2S and take a sac at the 4 level without distribution.

Are you saying partner should run from 4♠ to 5♣ when he is 2-2 in the minors or something since he knows you have an 8 card suit on the side?

(I'm not being facetious - maybe that is what you are saying)

[han]

Do you think it shows an 8-card club suit? 7 clubs? What's the minimal number of clubs it shows? Does it show more clubs than diamonds? If it doesn't show more clubs than diamonds, how can it be a fair description of your hand?

What you have written in this thread is truly ridiculous.

[Winstonm]

Bidding 5 clubs will be right when opponents are making something and we don't go off too much. Playing in spades at higher than 2 requires a club fit and good and/or long spades from partner.

Again, I view this as one of those hands where it feels like I need to take a stand and bid something, but the long-term correct action is most likely Pass.

[benlessard]

I meant that

1S----(2H)------2S-----(4H)
P------(P)-------5C

I hope you dont take 5C as slam try.

1S----(2H)------2S-----(4H)
P------(P)-------4S

4S here IMO show

H shortness without super trumps (with 4 trumps and a stiff H not close to a limit I would bid 4S directly. If they bid 5H partner shoulndt compete and wont play me for a bundle.

Some hands where the opps will bid and raise D partner can figure out that i have clubs lenght. but i dont expect him to pull to 5C anyway i just expect him to not X 5H with his KQ of clubs.





Ive just sims the hands.

Ive put nobody VUL so with fairly agressive 2H overcall (10-19)
Ive removed the hands where W has a michaels instead of an overcall (quite frequent) and ive removed hands like

AKQJTxx
xx
Kxx
x

since i believe that i would open those with 4S or with namyats.



4S by south makes 28%
5C by north makes 24%
4H by west makes 54%
5H by west makes 30%

PS I also have to check for 5D by E.

This is a terrible hand for DD because north doesnt have a clear lead vs a H contract and west will lead trumps with impossible holdings. Im wondering if its possible to impose a lead with DM pro and if so what would you lead with north hand vs 5H assuming most common bidding sequences by EW.

[benlessard]

---

This is the first deal where 5C makes and 4S deosnt but it takes an impossible lead of the K of D or the 9 of clubs.

---

I didnt do a M cue with W, one of the fairly rare hands where 4S makes but not 5C.

---

4S cold,5C no play.

---

If you lead a high diamonds followed by A and small trump 4S is down 1, 5C makes.

[benlessard]

---

4S/5H makes 5C is down. Probably that if NS bid 5C it will stop there while if he bid just 2S/3S/3C EW should reach 5H.

---

5C isnt good but it makes, 4S doesnt.

---

Highy questionnable 2H overcall i just didnt want to do a michaels nor pass with the hand. 4S makes 5C is down.

[Fluffy]

the hand lays in clubs, having 3 spades is great ebcause it reduces our losers.

On my system I would bid 2NT showing clubs with any strenght, on standard methods 5♣ looks like my gambleing hand best description, I lack defensive values for a 3♣ GF bid.

[benlessard]

Ive checked a couple of more hands and my conclusion is that 4S is slightly better game than a club contract by about 5% out of 30% wich is 1/6, im pretty sure about it. However if youre W vs R 5C is probably a better bid since it might stop them from 5 red wich might make or be a cheap save, i have no strong opinion for W vs W. Vul however bidding 5C seems to be a small mistake since youll get X in 5C significantly more often than in 4S while if you get X in 4S you can pull to 5C.

Bidding 3C has no advantage over 5C and none over 2S since clubs support by opener is fairly irrelevent for knowing if 5C is better than 4S. Curiously i saw no correlation between club support as a factor for seeing if 5C is better than 4S. However as club support increased the chance of making 5red by opps increased drastically.

[mikl_plkcc]

4♣
I don't want the contract to be pushed too high.

[Cascade]

whereagles, on Dec 7 2008, 07:02 AM, said:

Ron, if you use Linux, you might want to try henk uijterwaal's "dealer" program. It's pretty good at doing simulations.

I would help you, but I'm not using Linux at home or office right now.

Dealer works under windows (in a dos window) as well. I use it often.

[Cascade]

We frequently bid a non-forcing 3♣ with this sort of hand and follow up with a free spade bid if we get a chance which seems reasonably likely.

[neilkaz]

I'm bidding 5♣ which just might also be a good sac vs the opp's potential 4♥

[mtvesuvius]

My initial thought is to bid 4♠ and hope for the best. However this is a miserable bid if the clubs do not run. I think I'll start with 3♣, and bid 4♠ over 4♥. I don't like it, but it's the best I can do...


AJK

[whereagles]

Cascade, on Dec 10 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

We frequently bid a non-forcing 3♣ with this sort of hand and follow up with a free spade bid if we get a chance which seems reasonably likely.

hum... thats interesting. I could never get it to work. I'll get back to this later, if you don't mind.