[Fluffy]

precision, 3♦ shows 5+-5+ with maximum 15 HCP
♠A10852
♥3
♦963
♣A1073

opps vul

pass-(pass)-1♥-(pass)
1♠-(pass)-3♦-(pass)
??

[mikeh]

I'd like to know a little more: imo, playing a limited method may allow you to bid more aggressively, but doesn't mean that your hand will take more tricks. IOW, to justify a jumpshift on a 15 count with no fit yet known, this should be a hand with virtually all the hcp in one's suits

x KQxxx KQxxx KQ should (edit) NOT jumpshift. I didn't proofread initially, so wrote left out the 'not', tho I hope the context made it clear.

Assuming that partner is on that same page, I can hope for a hand that resembles AKxxx AKxxx in the reds. Assume a trump lead: I need trump 3-2 and I need to ruff two hearts in dummy. I can picture the play: win the trump, play A and a heart, ruffing, A and a black ruff, ruff a heart, ruff a black (after cashing the other black Ace earlier) and play the top trump and run the hearts, losing a black trick and a trump.

I need 3-2 trumps and 4-3 hearts.

That's a reasonable game at imps, and he could have other holdings offering equivalent or slightly better play.

Is 4♦ forcing? I don't know, because it has been many years since I played a big club method.

If it is invitational, I bid it. If it is forcing, I bid 5♦, which is logically 'to play' with no slam interest. I'd rather invite, but I'd prefer to bid game rather than pass 3♦ if inviting isn't possible.

3N appears ludicrous to me.

[PhilKing]

Partner shouldn't be mucking around, but just in case he is, I shall content myself with 4♦. Luckily I am a passed hand, so I don't have to worry if this is forcing.

[mikeh]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-09, 18:17, said:

Partner shouldn't be mucking around, but just in case he is, I shall content myself with 4♦. Luckily I am a passed hand, so I don't have to worry if this is forcing.

didn't notice that:)

[Codo]

If partner has a close to perfect maximum, I make game if both red suits break... I would pass.

[Cyberyeti]

Codo, on 2013-April-10, 01:18, said:

If partner has a close to perfect maximum, I make game if both red suits break... I would pass.

Actually it can be better than that (x, AKxxxx, AKxxx, x, doesn't have to be only 5-5) but there are lots of decent hands where 5♦ is terrible, Q, KQJ10x, AKxxx, xx for example.

I think pass is best.

[rhm]

mikeh, on 2013-April-09, 17:34, said:

I'd like to know a little more: imo, playing a limited method may allow you to bid more aggressively, but doesn't mean that your hand will take more tricks. IOW, to justify a jumpshift on a 15 count with no fit yet known, this should be a hand with virtually all the hcp in one's suits

x KQxxx KQxxx KQ should jumpshift.

Assuming that partner is on that same page, I can hope for a hand that resembles AKxxx AKxxx in the reds.

I would not be on the same page with you.
Any serious Precision partnership should discuss what a jump in new suit by opener should mean after a one level response.
It can not be game forcing since opener is limited and at least I believe Precision is not a license for overbidding if you want to win.
And just showing a maximum 5-5 when so far you have no indication of a fit makes no sense.
On the other hand strong two suiter are not suitable for upgrading to 1♣ status, since they are vulnerable to interference.
I would not jump with AKxxx AKxxx in the reds. I would want fit confirmation first.
What matters, particularly if you are "only" 5-5, is the internal quality of your suits. With AKJTx KQJTx in the reds I would jump shift
With this in mind it becomes clear that you should have enough for game and 5♦ is the only reasonable choice from the above selection.
4♣ in a well oiled partnership might be better, if understood not as natural, which makes little sense.
For once slam is not out of the question and 4♥ might be a better contract, if partner has long good hearts, e.g. ♠x, ♥KQJTxx, ♦AQxxx, ♣x

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

rhm, on 2013-April-10, 03:23, said:

I would not be on the same page with you.

I think when Mike said partner "should jumpshift" with x KQxxx KQxxx KQ, he meant to type "shouldn't". But I agree opener needs more than just a maximum. So 55 only with very good suits, but frequently 65 or 56.

[Free]

mikeh, on 2013-April-09, 17:34, said:

Is 4♦ forcing? I don't know, because it has been many years since I played a big club method.

Can 4♦ really be forcing with a passed hand opposite a very well described hand? I think 4♦ asks partner to reevaluate his red suit values based on the fact that we don't have a ♥ fit.

Imo it's close between pass and 4♦. Partner can have extra distribution, but he might as well have bid 4♦ with that imo. So I voted Pass. It's a long way to 5♦.

[mikeh]

rhm, on 2013-April-10, 03:23, said:

I would not be on the same page with you.
Any serious Precision partnership should discuss what a jump in new suit by opener should mean after a one level response.
It can not be game forcing since opener is limited and at least I believe Precision is not a license for overbidding if you want to win.
And just showing a maximum 5-5 when so far you have no indication of a fit makes no sense.
On the other hand strong two suiter are not suitable for upgrading to 1♣ status, since they are vulnerable to interference.
I would not jump with AKxxx AKxxx in the reds. I would want fit confirmation first.
What matters, particularly if you are "only" 5-5, is the internal quality of your suits. With AKJTx KQJTx in the reds I would jump shift
With this in mind it becomes clear that you should have enough for game and 5♦ is the only reasonable choice from the above selection.
4♣ in a well oiled partnership might be better, if understood not as natural, which makes little sense.
For once slam is not out of the question and 4♥ might be a better contract, if partner has long good hearts, e.g. ♠x, ♥KQJTxx, ♦AQxxx, ♣x

Rainer Herrmann

I didn't suggest that the js was game forcing: if you think I did, reread my post where I point out that allowing weaker j/s than in std doesn't make the hands take any more tricks!

I also didn't say that AKxxx AKxxx was a j/s. I said that I thought the hand should 'resemble' that sort of holding and by that I meant that opener has at a minimum two GOOD suits. I'd expect some internal texture and maybe a spade card if the full hcp was not within the suits. I think that we are indeed on the same page . What I wouldn't expect would the a hand where 3 or 4 hcp (out of 15) were black.

[mikeh]

Free, on 2013-April-10, 12:14, said:

Can 4♦ really be forcing with a passed hand opposite a very well described hand? I think 4♦ asks partner to reevaluate his red suit values based on the fact that we don't have a ♥ fit.

Imo it's close between pass and 4♦. Partner can have extra distribution, but he might as well have bid 4♦ with that imo. So I voted Pass. It's a long way to 5♦.

When quoting someone to show that they posted nonsense, try to post fairly...as in look at post #4

As for your notion that he would bid 4♦, I suspect that you're overestimating the diamond length shown by 4♦ (as the 2nd call by opener) by at least 4 cards and often 5.

[HeartA]

Free, on 2013-April-10, 12:14, said:

Can 4♦ really be forcing with a passed hand opposite a very well described hand? I think 4♦ asks partner to reevaluate his red suit values based on the fact that we don't have a ♥ fit.

Imo it's close between pass and 4♦. Partner can have extra distribution, but he might as well have bid 4♦ with that imo. So I voted Pass. It's a long way to 5♦.

Agree with first paragraph. I would bid 4♦. If pd has a perfect hand, we might have a slam. Who knows.

[Fluffy]

I have been playing strong club for just a few years, and my experience with 5-5 in the 14-16 range is still very low.

Do you guys think that it would be better to bid 16-(bad 17) down the middle 5-5s opening with 1M to rebid 3m next?, so that 1M-3m could be 16-17 if 5-5, or perhaps less if very good suits or 6-5(5-6)

[HeartA]

Fluffy, on 2013-April-10, 13:38, said:

I have been playing strong club for just a few years, and my experience with 5-5 in the 14-16 range is still very low.

Do you guys think that it would be better to bid 16-(bad 17) down the middle 5-5s opening with 1M to rebid 3m next?, so that 1M-3m could be 16-17 if 5-5, or perhaps less if very good suits or 6-5(5-6)

I myself haven't played strong clubs for a long time. But I don't think players would down grade their hand to open 1M with 16-17 two suiter, unless the points are really "bad": QJ, KJxxx, AK, Qxxx. But people might upgrade their hands to 1♣ opener if two suiters are really good. But it depends on player's personal style and partnership agreement.

If opener frequently "upgrades" his hand, then pass 3♦ might be better choice.

[MrAce]

To me AKxxx AKxxx is hell of a jump shift in precision, even if my spots are 432 and 432.

You are making a limit opening bid, limited from (10)11 to 15. You have 2 five card suits headed by AK and still not enough because of intermediates ?

This hand is almost a j/s in natural system if you fill it with good spots imho.

EDIT: I asked this hand to couple of star players in BBO, told them it is precision, they both bid 2♦ so i may be off on this evaluation.

[Fluffy]

MrAce, on 2013-April-10, 15:21, said:

EDIT: I asked this hand to couple of star players in BBO, told them it is precision, they both bid 2♦ so i may be off on this evaluation.

This reinforces my though of opening some 5-5 2 suiters in 1M instead of 1♣, after all 1♣ openings are very bad for 2 suiters.

[gwnn]

Yes get some 5-5's out of 1C and maybe put some 6-7 carders (especially spades) in 1C I think.

[rhm]

MrAce, on 2013-April-10, 15:21, said:

To me AKxxx AKxxx is hell of a jump shift in precision, even if my spots are 432 and 432.

You are making a limit opening bid, limited from (10)11 to 15. You have 2 five card suits headed by AK and still not enough because of intermediates ?

This hand is almost a j/s in natural system if you fill it with good spots imho.

EDIT: I asked this hand to couple of star players in BBO, told them it is precision, they both bid 2♦ so i may be off on this evaluation.

When you jump you tend to cut short the strain searching process, in particular when the jump is not game forcing.
When you jump with limited values you should not only make a statement that you are strong in context, but give a strong opinion where the partnership should play.
Nobody argues that AKxxx AKxxx is not a good holding in itself but it is dependent on support.
It is far from clear that you should not want to play in partner's long broken suit where you are short. Your controls will still take tricks there. So you need room to find out, you do not have if you jump.
KQJTx is a much better trump suit opposite shortness. As a side suit it would need time to develop tricks you may not have. That is crucial in my view when you take away bidding room by jumping with limited values.

Rainer Herrmann

[chasetb]

1.) I pass. 5♦ can have some play, but more often than not it won't make. We need some suits to break, and if partner has 6-5 or 6-6, the opponents might interfere and then we can crack them.
2.) Just because you are 14-16 HCP doesn't mean you should J/S. I wouldn't do it with a 5-5 unless I have the intermediates; I usually would with 6-5 and 6-6 always. On ♠KQJTxx ♥J ♦ x ♣ KQT98 I have opened 1♠ and rebid 3♣, alerting the opponents in the process.
3.) When I am 5-5, it depends on my suits and how I expect the auction to go. With 16 HCP, I can't have Spade shortness. With 13-15 HCP, Spades is one of my suits. At 13 or 14, I will usually have Hearts as well, though it could be Diamonds.
4.) Because of interference over 1♣, I don't strictly play it as 16+ (17+ bal). 1♦ is 10-(bad)18 (if 16-18, then 5+ Diamonds and 0-3 Spades), 1♥ is 10-16, 1♠ tends to be 10-(bad)15.
5.) Raising the limit on Diamonds has helped a lot more than hurt, especially in competition. It also freed up 1♣-1♦; 2♦ to be forcing for 1 round, so we added GF balanced hands with no 5-c M into that bid.

[MrAce]

rhm, on 2013-April-11, 02:13, said:

When you jump you tend to cut short the strain searching process, in particular when the jump is not game forcing.
When you jump with limited values you should not only make a statement that you are strong in context, but give a strong opinion where the partnership should play.
Nobody argues that AKxxx AKxxx is not a good holding in itself but it is dependent on support.
It is far from clear that you should not want to play in partner's long broken suit where you are short. Your controls will still take tricks there. So you need room to find out, you do not have if you jump.
KQJTx is a much better trump suit opposite shortness. As a side suit it would need time to develop tricks you may not have. That is crucial in my view when you take away bidding room by jumping with limited values.

Rainer Herrmann

I agree with almost everything you said, of course i prefer a hand as in your examples.

My concern is, if i was responder, i would never expect or play pd for AKxxx AKxxx if he started 2♦.