[Fluffy]

you agree to lead 4th best against NT, but 3rd and 5th in partner's suit.

partner opens 1♣ first position, RHO overcalls 1NT and the final contract is 1/2/3 NT, you are on lead and lead a club, you pick....

[jdonn]

Sorry I know this doesn't answer the question but I must rant.

I would never ever ever ever be in this position. Any time I agree anything about "partner's suit" I have a thorough discussion about what that means, whether it applies to minor suit openings, the major shown by a negative double, doubling of an artificial bid, etc. How can people make these agreements in 5 seconds and think it will get them by.

Ok I won't waste all that time without at least answering. My preference is this is not partner's suit when I make the agreement so I will assume that I guess.

[ArtK78]

If you set forth the entirety of your agreement, then partner's suit is clubs. Whether he actually has clubs or not is another matter.

If you change your agreement to treat clubs as a non-suit under these circumstances, the answer would, of course, be different. But you can't ignore the fact that partner bid clubs and change your agreement without a discussion.

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on May 7 2010, 01:21 PM, said:

If you set forth the entirety of your agreement, then partner's suit is clubs. Whether he actually has clubs or not is another matter.

If you change your agreement to treat clubs as a non-suit under these circumstances, the answer would, of course, be different. But you can't ignore the fact that partner bid clubs and change your agreement without a discussion.

I don't believe there is any implication that "partner's suit" means "a suit partner has bid". It seems like by your interpretation partner could transfer to a suit and that is not "partner's suit". Frankly I don't think "partner's suit" really means anything except as a general guide. Kind of like saying "good hand" as though that has a specific definition.

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on May 7 2010, 01:21 PM, said:

If you set forth the entirety of your agreement, then partner's suit is clubs. Whether he actually has clubs or not is another matter.

If you change your agreement to treat clubs as a non-suit under these circumstances, the answer would, of course, be different. But you can't ignore the fact that partner bid clubs and change your agreement without a discussion.

I agree, and I don't understand Josh's response.

Partner bid a suit, and he intended it as natural. While it may turn out not to be very long, it is 'his suit'.

Just as if he responded to my 1♣ with 1♥, on xxxx, and I was later on lead against spades or nt or diamonds, I'd treat hearts as 'his suit'.

Is this optimum in the given sequence? That's debatable but also irrelevant.

[Gerben42]

I normally play that a short ♣ is not "partner's suit". So 4th best it is.

[kfay]

Gerben42, on May 7 2010, 02:34 PM, said:

I normally play that a short ♣ is not "partner's suit". So 4th best it is.

Even though we all know partner is really actually very likely to have clubs?

[gwnn]

How do we all know that?

[ArtK78]

Because he bid them?

[gwnn]

I took 'very likely to have clubs' to mean more likely to have clubs than a priori.

[bid_em_up]

gwnn, on May 7 2010, 03:41 PM, said:

I took 'very likely to have clubs' to mean more likely to have clubs than a priori.

Hasn't this been covered already?

Or maybe it was in the ACBL bridge bulletin recently, it all kinda runs together these days.

[gwnn]

hum? There were discussions about things like

-expected club length of a 1C opener which is:
*SAYC
*SAYC plus exactly 4-4-3-2
*SAYC plus all balanced hands outside NT range
*Polish club
(maybe)
*clubs or 15+ balanced

There was a thread about the expected fit from partner depending on your length in RHO's minor suit.

I don't recall any threads on, say,

1C-(1N)-p-(3NT)

I think in this type of auction opps are likely balanced and our RHO has likely length (3-4 cards) in partner's suit, thereby making partner balanced thereby reducing his club length from the a priori odds.

[bid_em_up]

gwnn, on May 7 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

I don't recall any threads on, say,

1C-(1N)-p-(3NT)

Not this.

But I did think there was one on how many cards partner will have (on average) in a minor suit that he opens.

**SAYC plus exactly 4-4-3-2

This might be the one I am thinking of.

[jdonn]

Obviously partner is not likely to have long clubs in the given problem because:
- There was a 1NT overcall showing club strength (and length?)
- We must have 4+ clubs opposite for this question to be relevant.

Mike are you saying if partner opens a "could be 0" precision 1♦ that is his suit? If so, wow. If not, where is the cutoff? "Natural"? So it's based on what the regulations in force define as natural?

[bluecalm]

If I were to make that agreement I think only considering the suits which we promise 5+length in (or 8+cards combined) should be considered "ours".

[cloa513]

What is your system?, if standard american, a clubs bid is more likely to mean he has the majors as opponents have the majority of HCP. If Acol then your partner is more likely to have clubs. Both cases assuming you have at least a few HCP.

[Fluffy]

cloa513, on May 8 2010, 12:42 AM, said:

What is your system?, if standard american, a clubs bid is more likely to mean he has the majors as opponents have the majority of HCP. If Acol then your partner is more likely to have clubs. Both cases assuming you have at least a few HCP.

best minor, if you happen to open 1♣ with 4432 I gave you an option in the poll as well.

[helene_t]

Probably best to treat it as a non-suit for this purpose, but since we treat 1♣ as a natural bid in general I wd assume it to apply here also.

[kfay]

Good point.

[Free]

I have the agreement that if the suit can be 2 or fewer cards we don't consider it natural. If it's 3+ cards, consider it natural. This agreement may not be perfect, but at least we don't have misunderstandings.