[gwnn]

Two hands from the club, both involving bidding W/R against strong ♣.

1.

Scoring: IMP

1♣-2♦-3♣-?

---

Partner usually has 6 cards for 2♦. 3♣ was game forcing. He will 100% not understand any intended fit jumps or fit non jumps (because they're not agreed upon). What's your plan?


2.

Scoring: IMP

1♣-2♦-3♣-?

---

What's your plan? You haven't agreed to any two suited overcalls. What would your plan be if you had one available?

[rbforster]

1. 4♥, pulling if doubled or over 4♠ to 5♦.

2. 3♣, or generally treating it as whichever of 1-suited or 2-suited lets me preempt higher

[lexlogan]

1. 6♦ . I have no appreciable defense, and no reason to suppose partner does.

2. 3♣. My usual method is to double with spades and another suit, but even with that agreement the immediate jump to 3♣ seems apt to be more effective. I have the option to back in with 4♠ later.

[Fluffy]

First hand I doubt I can beat 7, I can start bidding from 5♦ up to 7♦ untill they shut up, but that would be costly if aprtner has ♥ singleton and a ♥ trick (or even 2!) might be taken.

I can also bid 3♥ and then 6♦ so partner has a good picture of what we are holding and may make a clever decision at the 7 level.... Really?, no, he is not that clever.

Involving partner would be a blame transfer, I bid 5♦, 6♦ next, and then try some table feeling.

Second hand 4♣, I would bid only 3 if partner wasn't a passed hand.

[655321]

(1) 5♦ then most likely pass throughout. Definitely not starting with a bid below 4♥. Does partner really have 6 cards for this (and 7 cards for a w/r 3♦ overcall of a strong club?)

(2) 4♣

[han]

1. 5D

2. 4C

[whereagles]

1. 5NT, invinting a save in 7♦.

2. 3♣. There are some bad breaks lurking, so better be moderately cautious.

[gwnn]

655321, on Dec 19 2008, 11:55 PM, said:

Does partner really have 6 cards for this (and 7 cards for a w/r 3♦ overcall of a strong club?)

Yes more often than not.

[Free]

5♦
3♣

[gwnn]

board 1 it went

1♣-2♦-3♣-5♦
6♣-end

and partner lead a high diamond from

Qxxx
xx
AJxxxx
x

(a club or heart is needed to beat it)

Actually I had the colours wrong, it was none vulnerable, but I left it like this.

board 2 it doesn't matter much what we do. At our table the auction was a little funny
1♣-3♣-x-4♣
4♦-all pass! +100!

[benlessard]

Board 1 i think passing and taking whatever save is necessary make sense.
Bidding 5D/6D against good opps will pratically forced them to bluff you and all you can do is pay the insurance.

2nd option seems to bid 4H hoping it will stop them to reach 6, if they do youll still have a tough choice between defending and sac. Usually i hate making them guess and saving afterward but here I feel a bit uneasy about defending since the sacrifice will probably cost only 500.

[Echognome]

1. 5♦

2. 3♣, as I would not play 4♣ as natural. (I thought most people played this as the good single-suited Major hand?).

[maggieb]

Echognome, on Dec 21 2008, 02:31 AM, said:

I would not play 4♣ as natural. (I thought most people played this as the good single-suited Major hand?).

[Free]

maggieb, on Dec 21 2008, 08:36 AM, said:

Echognome, on Dec 21 2008, 02:31 AM, said:

I would not play 4♣ as natural.  (I thought most people played this as the good single-suited Major hand?).

Why not Gerber?

[han]

No 1C - 1NT (minors) - p - 4C would be gerber, only after notrump.

[MFA]

Back in the old junior days, an inexperienced pair played 3♣ = gerber, no matter sequence.

So they could actually bid (1♣, strong) - 3♣ gerber!

3♣ followed by 4♣ would ask for kings. The beauty of this was that they could stay low if a lot of aces and kings were missing, which typically happened to be the case .

[han]

Sounds like my kind of system, do you have notes for it?

[whereagles]

enough of these gerber jokes. already!