[rwbarton]

First, the auction. You deal w/r at IMPs:

____ ____ ____ Pass
(Pass) 2♣* (Dbl) Pass
(2♥) 4♣ (4♥)

* 2♣ was ostensibly 11-15 with 6+ clubs, might have a side 4-card suit; but in 3rd w/r anything goes

1. What kind of hand do you expect opener to have for 4♣?

Now, your hand.

Scoring: IMP

---

3♣ was a possibility at your second turn, but you chose to pass.

2. What do you do now?
3. How close is it? For instance, if you would pass here, what smallest change to the hand would make you double?

[rogerclee]

1) 8 clubs
2) I would pass, and I didn't consider bidding 3C the previous round. The smallest change to make me double would be the jack of hearts. I'm tanking on the ten, but that's also possible.

[aguahombre]

rogerclee, on Mar 27 2010, 07:47 PM, said:

1) 8 clubs
2) I would pass, and I didn't consider bidding 3C the previous round. The smallest change to make me double would be the jack of hearts. I'm tanking on the ten, but that's also possible.

Just curious. Is that normal for big clubbers to start slow in 3rd chair w/r with an 8-bagger?

[jjbrr]

He could have like AK 7th and an AK outside. I think this hand is close to bidding 5♣, and it'll probably make 11 tricks on a ♥ lead with the K onside, but I'd still pass this.

Opposite myself, I would definitely raise to 3♣ the first time. Opposite someone who sometimes opens 2♣ on 5, it's clear to pass.

[aguahombre]

jjbrr, on Mar 27 2010, 08:17 PM, said:

He could have like AK 7th and an AK outside.

considering the crap people open 2C with when it is strong, forcing, and artificial, I would think 1C would be allowed with that example.

[rwbarton]

aguahombre, on Mar 27 2010, 10:23 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Mar 27 2010, 08:17 PM, said:

He could have like AK 7th and an AK outside.

considering the crap people open 2C with when it is strong, forcing, and artificial, I would think 1C would be allowed with that example.

As a point of reference, in this seat our 1NT opening is 15-17 and we usually open 1♣ with a decent unbalanced 16.

Styles may differ, but I don't like to upgrade shapely hands into 1♣ often, except spade one-suiters; too difficult to get my suits in if the auction becomes competitive and our relays over 1♣ are less effective when opener is very unbalanced. I would probably open 2♣ or possibly 5♣ with jjbrr's example.

aguahombre said:

Just curious. Is that normal for big clubbers to start slow in 3rd chair w/r with an 8-bagger?

For us it would be very rare, maybe on a J-high club suit with lots of stuff in the other suits? Usually 1♣ or 5♣ here.

[jjbrr]

aguahombre, on Mar 27 2010, 09:23 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Mar 27 2010, 08:17 PM, said:

He could have like AK 7th and an AK outside.

considering the crap people open 2C with when it is strong, forcing, and artificial, I would think 1C would be allowed with that example.

i think its very wrong to open 1♣ with that. upgrading by 1 point is fine, but AK xxx x AKxxxxx is a clear 2♣ bid to me in precision.

edit: but with that said, i would have raised with the hand with only 2♣ and an AQ and a doubleton, so obv 2♣ can contain some pretty decent hands. i just strongly feel that a strong 1♣ is wrong with that hand, and that after 2♣ it's a bidder's game and it's good to jam this auction a lot. it's hard to penalty double at the 3 level when you know someone has a 6-card suit and the other guy has a fit. but particularly after a double where 2M will likely be great for them, it's good to preempt them a little with a raise. it's pretty low risk imo and in cases like this where partner has a 4♣ rebid, we're sort of in a good spot.

i also think 5♣ is wrong. 3NT could be way better, and you have some defense, and you'll get a chance to bid 5♣ if partner shows interest. what's the hurry?

[aguahombre]

jjbrr, on Mar 27 2010, 10:08 PM, said:

i also think 5♣ is wrong. 3NT could be way better, and you have some defense, and you'll get a chance to bid 5♣ if partner shows interest. what's the hurry?

this is lost on my feeble brain. The auction is up to 4H now, and I seriously doubt anyone suggested bidding 5C after 2C is dbl'd.

[rwbarton]

aguahombre, on Mar 28 2010, 01:09 AM, said:

jjbrr, on Mar 27 2010, 10:08 PM, said:

i also think 5♣ is wrong. 3NT could be way better, and you have some defense, and you'll get a chance to bid 5♣ if partner shows interest. what's the hurry?

this is lost on my feeble brain. The auction is up to 4H now, and I seriously doubt anyone suggested bidding 5C after 2C is dbl'd.

I think jjbrr was referring to my comment that I might open 5♣ on AK7th of clubs and a side AK. I wouldn't do that with AK x xxx AKxxxxx, but I might with xx - AKxx AKxxxxx.

[jjbrr]

Ya sorry. the stuff about 5♣ was directed at Reid

[jdonn]

Wow AK xxx x AKxxxxx is a clear 1♣ to me, partner will pass 2♣ on all sorts of moderate balanced hands that make 3NT, like xxxx AQx QJ9x xx etc. (I should just be ridiculous and say xxx xxxx Axxx Qx). I think his auction shows something like AQx x x KQJTxxxx. I would bid 5 which I don't expect to usually make but it could, and let them guess whether to bid 5 anyway.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, when I asked about 1C being "allowed" with that hand, I didn't mean bridge regulations. I wondered if bidding 1C on that example AK X XX AKXXXXX would screw up other forcing club auctions. About 40+ years since I played Precision..the CC Wei version.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 7-4, he needs to have a reason not to open 4C.
#2 Pass
#3 No idea, maybe another trick, which brings the hand close to
an opener.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Fluffy]

partner bid 4♣ constructively IMO, suggesting we bid 5, I think we owe him a raise.

[WellSpyder]

jdonn, on Mar 28 2010, 02:21 PM, said:

Wow AK xxx x AKxxxxx is a clear 1♣ to me

Not allowed in England, though - with only 14 points you need 11 cards in your two longest suits to satisfy the rule of 25, which is required for a strong 1♣

[jdonn]

WellSpyder, on Mar 29 2010, 10:11 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 28 2010, 02:21 PM, said:

Wow AK xxx x AKxxxxx is a clear 1♣ to me

Not allowed in England, though - with only 14 points you need 11 cards in your two longest suits to satisfy the rule of 25, which is required for a strong 1♣

If you are correct about that then England stinks. Anyway I thought that was for a strong 2♣ which is a much stronger bid. You can't possibly be right about that, you would be saying with 17 you can't open a strong club if you are 4333, with 16 not even if you are 5332?

[WellSpyder]

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. Any 16+ is OK for a strong 1♣. But with less than 16 it must satisfy the rule of 25 (or have 8 clear-cut tricks).

I happen to agree with you that this stinks, and I have fulminated against it in other threads, since I believe it is fundamental to the game that players should be allowed to use judgment, and some 15 or even 14 counts are clearly stronger hands than some 16 counts. More practically, I have applied to the Laws and Ethics committee for approval of a method allowing 1♣ on a 15-count or alternatively an agreement allowing more judgment for intermediates and/or shape beyond the length of the two longest suits. This should be considered by the committee at their next meeting....

[aguahombre]

Wellspyder: If you run out of arguments to your L&E gang --you might point out that it is unrealistic to apply the same restrictions for an opening bid which propells the partnership to at least 2NT, and for an opening bid which can get dropped in one of a suit.

I know, Josh. I am repeating essentially what you posted. However, it is not sarcasm. Sometimes a committee, or a person, needs the same thing said more than one way before it sinks in.

[WellSpyder]

aguahombre, on Mar 29 2010, 11:07 AM, said:

Wellspyder:  If you run out of arguments to your L&E gang --you might point out that it is unrealistic to apply the same restrictions for an opening bid which propells the partnership to at least 2NT, and for an opening bid which can get dropped it one of a suit.

Thanks, Agua. I think they know this really, they just haven't yet been convinced that there is a better alternative. People have also argued that strong-clubbers should be grateful for the rule of 25 since before it was introduced there were no exceptions to a minimum of 16 points at all! "Yes, we know it is awful but it used to be even worse" doesn't seem to me a particularly good reason for keeping the status quo. I will hope for the best - at least there seems to be more willingness to consider changes in England than there is in the US, from what I can gather from these forums.....

[barryallen]

Without fully understanding what 4♣ means here, I would bid 5♣. If I was on lead, I would be reasonably confident of getting the contract down with a ♠ lead and pass. Off lead I can easily see any entry into partners hand possibly disappearing and 4♥ making. Even if I have this wrong, it's w/r and there is still a small chance that the defence can get the opening lead wrong and let 5♣ slip through.