[Cascade]

Dealer: South Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ AKJ743 ♥ 54 ♦ ♣ K9752

West North East South

 -     -     -     1♠
 Dbl   Pass  2♠    ?

Partner could have:

Made a negative free bid - usually showing a six-card suit;

Or obviously raised spades with any 6+ with three or more card support;

Bid 1NT with almost any other 6-9(10);

XX with any stronger hand

[rogerclee]

3♠, it takes more space.

[Winstonm]

Pass. My partner had a lot of freedom to act over the double and I'm not really interested in this hand with only xx fiit for spades.

[jdonn]

I definitely act. I think I bid 3♣, that could easily be where our sac is.

[dicklont]

3♠
It looks like the opps can make a game, maybe a slam.
I won't bid 3♣ because I don't want partner to lead them and any declarer would be happy with so much info about the distribution.

[H_KARLUK]

Sys?
Pass. Opps D and CB shows strength. I can't play at both sides of th table.

[peachy]

I bid something with this sort of hand. 3S or 3C both look good to me.

[MFA]

3♣. I tend to always get my suits in if possible. 3♠ might make it tougher for the opponents, but maybe we have a club fit.

[dake50]

I try 3S. As I would bid 3S on many shapes, strengths to dare opponents to try X, I don't blab much for them to evaluate 'right' stuff. Take a level away before they find and announce which fit, like that. As little as CQxxx makes 3S-X cheap, let alone CAx with 2xS where C-ruff then SJ finesse makes.
I don't know their best bid over 3S so I bid there. Likely their best over 4S is X and they will see that. They are competent to find H-slam, D-slam, just game with 3-level for exploring.

[Hanoi5]

3♣, though I'd really prefer my clubs (and therefore my hand) to be better.

[y66]

My judgment sucks. I like 3S here.

[hotShot]

I need partners cooperation to get to the best spot, I can only get that if i bid 3♣ now. My partner will know that I have some shape for that bid.

[helene_t]

I admire your faith in your partner, hotshot

[OleBerg]

3♠.

When I have a good 6-card suit, and a bad 5-card suit, I don't ask partner to take preference.

Actually, this is not a bad spot for incooperating partner with such a hand, but I believe that the extra space 3♠ takes away, makes up for that.

I don't feel to strongly that 3♠ is better than 3♣.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Feb 8 2009, 03:15 AM, said:

I definitely act. I think I bid 3♣, that could easily be where our sac is.

agreed

[655321]

3♣ for me too.

Agree that bidding is clear, and prefer 3♣ over 3♠ because we might find a big club fit.

3♠ does take up more space, but it won't find a big fit for our side. 3♠ also runs some extra risk of going for a number.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Feb 8 2009, 03:15 AM, said:

I definitely act. I think I bid 3♣, that could easily be where our sac is.

Josh,

I have always believed there was a category of hands where a bridge player with natural talent will feel that it is right to act but there is no good action to take.

That's how this hand is to me - I would like to act but don't see any reason to bid 3C and get the doubling started in search of a nebulous club sacrifice that may be a phantom or too expensive or non-existent - and unless we have an unlikely big (at least 9 card) spade fit, we aren't going to like spades real well, either.

What is your take on why you are bidding?

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Feb 8 2009, 05:07 PM, said:

Josh,

I'll take it as a compliment you chose me out of all who answered similarly. I'll answer as best I can.

Quote

I have always believed there was a category of hands where a bridge player with natural talent will feel that it is right to act but there is no good action to take.

That's how this hand is to me -

Isn't that in direct contradiction to your first reply that said "I'm not really interested in this hand"? Well anyway...

Quote

I would like to act but don't see any reason to bid 3C and get the doubling started in search of a nebulous club sacrifice that may be a phantom or too expensive or non-existent

Questions:
Why is a club sacrifice "nebulous"? It looks to me like that's just a meaningless buzzword you toss in to support your argument.
Why are you worried partner will take a sacrifice if it's a phantom?
Why are you worried partner will take a sacrifice if it's too expensive?
(Nothing to ask about non-existant, that is simply a redundancy that combines 'phantom' with 'too expensive', since in either case a [good] club sacrifice is non-existent.)

Quote

- and unless we have an unlikely big (at least 9 card) spade fit, we aren't going to like spades real well, either.

Sure the odds of us taking a sacrifice in spades are slim to none. But at least it gives us another out at the 3 level in case we are already in danger.

Quote

What is your take on why you are bidding?

Why I am bidding at all? (As opposed to why I am bidding 3♣ in particular, which I already said is because we may have a sacrifice?) Because auctions become far far more difficult for them when you get in the way. Think of all the possible misunderstandings and confusion this could introduce for them, and keep in mind these are for a bid that don't even take up any space.

- Opener passes. One of them think it shows a minimum, the other thinks it could be extras since they are in a force. They may overbid or underbid or make a bad double of our contract, depending who believes what.
- Opener doubles. One of them thinks it shows extras with clubs, the other thinks it could be a minimum with good clubs, or one of them thinks it shows generic extras, or one of them thinks it shows extras with length in the red suits, or one of them thinks it shows balanced extras. They may overbid or underbid or end up in the wrong suit make a bad double of our contract, depending who believes what.
- Opener bids 3♦. One of them believes it shows extras, the other believes it doesn't. Again they reach the wrong contract.
- Opener bids 4♣. One thinks it's natural, one thinks it's just a strength showing cuebid. Good luck opponents!
- They don't have a true misunderstanding, but my show of 'strength' causes each of them to downgrade mild extras and miss a good slam.
- There is still a reasonable preemptive effect. Maybe partner bids 3♠ and gets in the way of RHO.

Most good bridge players would look at that list and say, at least of the misunderstandings, "that would never happen to me." But time after time, and often in very subtle ways, it does happen to even very good players. Auctions are simply tougher when the opponents keep getting in the way. I won't pretend bidding is particularly safe, but so many good things can happen that I am honestly not very worried at all. I would say it's impossible to be very successful at bridge if you spend all your time being focused on the negative.

Think of all these little bids as jabs in boxing. To fans they might seem like they don't do very much. But they blind and daze and confuse and irritate the opponent just a little, enough to make him a little less effective in some ways that aren't very obvious at all by just throwing his timing off. And sure I could get hit with a big punch for that slight moment I leave my face open, but it is just a moment, so he is very likely to misjudge and leave his open even more.

[brianshark]

Seems like a normal 3♣ to me. Show what we have and let partner have some input rather than the master-minding 3♠ bid.

[FrancesHinden]

3C looks fairly normal here.

But a question for you - what do you think 4C should show? Does it still show a very good hand, or should it be more pre-emptive in nature?

I have an agreement that 1minor P P action 3minor is "weak" (i.e. lots of playing strength but short in high cards).

I haven't discussed this particular auction, but if I had, say,

AKxxxx
x
-
KJ10xxx

I'd really want to bid 4C here without partner thinking I've shown

AKQxxx
x
-
AKJxxx