[pbleighton]

5C seems clear. Slam is possible, but unlikely.

Peter

[fred]

I think this is another example of a problem in which nobody really knows what the "right" bid is.

Just make the call that you are comfortable with (which is hopefully the same call that your partner would expect you to make on a hand like this).

For me that call is 2C. My style is to go slow on freak hands and try to learn enough information so that, in the not unlikely event that I have to make a high level decision, it will at least be an informed decision.

I have no strong convictions that this approach is "best" - it's just the way I like to bid such hands.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Free]

Here's the full hand:

Scoring: IMP

---

As you can see, 7♣ is laydown (on several finesses, so grand is a VERY poor slam).

At my table, it went 1♠-Dbl-2♠-3♥;3♠-Dbl-all pass! We made this contract for +730, and our partners played some ♣ contract (I'm not sure, but I think it was only 5♣)

IMO, 2♣ is the best bid, anything higher destroys the hand completely and Dbl is ridiculous...

[helene_t]

There was a similar problem in a bidding quiz in the Dutch BF monthly. One of the experts said: "3♠. Not the ideal hand but this convention is so funny." (How do you translate "leuk"?)

I voted "other" for the same reason. I can immagine some hands on which 3NT is makeable and 5♣ not. I can bid 5♣ after they bid 4♠.

[HeartA]

Free, on Mar 7 2005, 11:35 PM, said:

Here's the full hand:

....

As you can see, 7♣ is laydown (on several finesses, so grand is a VERY poor slam).

At my table, it went 1♠-Dbl-2♠-3♥;3♠-Dbl-all pass!  We made this contract for +730, and our partners played some ♣ contract (I'm not sure, but I think it was only 5♣)

IMO, 2♣ is the best bid, anything higher destroys the hand completely and Dbl is ridiculous...

Why is dble rediculous? I wouldn't dbl at the next turn. I would bid 4♣ over rho's 3♠, believe it or not. Then we would get to slam, not necessarily grand though.

[ochinko]

HeartA, on Mar 8 2005, 02:56 AM, said:

Why is dble rediculous?

First, you pretend to have at least three hearts, then your bid means you have no 6-card suits when you have a 7-card suit. How are you going to convince your partner afterwards that the clubs in your line are better than the hearts when your LHO jumps to 4Sp after your double?

Look at the actual hand. Is it likely that your partner is going to leave you in 6C instead of correcting to 6H? East leads a small trump, and you're down in 6H while 6C is cold.

[HeartA]

ochinko, on Mar 8 2005, 03:42 AM, said:

HeartA, on Mar 8 2005, 02:56 AM, said:

Why is dble rediculous?

First, you pretend to have at least three hearts, then your bid means you have no 6-card suits when you have a 7-card suit. How are you going to convince your partner afterwards that the clubs in your line are better than the hearts when your LHO jumps to 4Sp after your double?

Look at the actual hand. Is it likely that your partner is going to leave you in 6C instead of correcting to 6H? East leads a small trump, and you're down in 6H while 6C is cold.

When I dbl, pd could assume I have support for ♥. But after I bid MY suit, I am telling my pd, I have a strong one suiter hand, and (usually) denies support for pd's suit. When I bid ♣ at 4-level (or even 5 level), if pd still insists on ♥ with ♣Kx support, he wouldn't be my pd anymore. Does this make sense to you?

[flytoox]

The_Hog, on Mar 8 2005, 12:19 AM, said:

Fly it might surprise you to know that some people need values to bid, not just 13 cards. Give opener a slightly above minimum hand and as you have 22 points to the opps 18, and c are likely 3-2, the likelihood of the opps bidding again is very remote.
Anyway if you want to be pedantic, add one extra S and one fewer red card.

This is not the excuse. You want me to give you a hand pd wont be happy to see? What if he holds: xxxxx,kx,kqx,kxx. Do you expect he to raise to 7C after your 5C?

Should not you bid 5C with: --,x,xx,AQJtxxxxxx? What pd should do? He willnot know.

[ochinko]

Quote

When I dbl, pd could assume I have support for ♥. But after I bid MY suit, I am telling my pd, I have a strong one suiter hand, and (usually) denies support for pd's suit.  When I bid ♣ at 4-level (or even 5 level), if pd still insists on ♥ with ♣Kx support, he wouldn't be my pd anymore.  Does this make sense to you?

What matters is whether your bidding makes sense to your partner. The standard meaning of a takeout double is to let your partner pick up the trump suit. Misdescribing your hand, and blaming partner for trusting you doesn't look like a good idea to me. When you failed to bid clubs right away and your partner have chosen hearts 6C from you sound like a simple cue bid pushing your partner towards 7H.

[TimG]

ochinko, on Mar 8 2005, 05:22 AM, said:

The standard meaning of a takeout double is to let your partner pick up the trump suit.

That's not the end of the story with a takeout double. It could also be the start of a sequence which shows a single-suited hand that is too good for a simple overcall.

[ochinko]

TimG, on Mar 8 2005, 08:10 AM, said:

ochinko, on Mar 8 2005, 05:22 AM, said:

The standard meaning of a takeout double is to let your partner pick up the trump suit.

That's not the end of the story with a takeout double. It could also be the start of a sequence which shows a single-suited hand that is too good for a simple overcall.

If you're in a balancing position after (1Sp) - P - (P) - ? then yes, you double, then bid your own suit to show a stronger hand than a simple overcall. But here you're pressed to describe your hand better because your LHO is likely to jump to 4Sp and your partner will have to be a clairvoiant to pass your 6C after 5H from him.

[inquiry]

Pass is wrong because if it goes 1♠-P-P-your partner, with four or so spades, will know you are short in spades and didn't overcall or double. He will assume you are weak.

Ohter than pass, any bid might work out. However, Dbl seems distorted with this hand pattern, I much rather overcall 2♣ and then if they bid to some high level in spades, use double for tekeout. With three aces, if partner chooses to leave double in, then my hand will not be a disappointment even with a void.

I don't like 3♣ or 4♣, so forget those. Five clubs being vul is generally bid to make or down on one or two. This hand has a good chance to make five clubs but partner will never understand I have four first round controls. Two clubs is just about perfect. For one thing it is hardly possible for it to go 2♣-all pass... and if it does, my parnter is probably long in spades and short in clubs in which case five clubs is likely an overbid.

Ben

[hotShot]

I would bid 4♣, but only because my partner and i agreed that a jump to 4m is RKCB in that suit. So it shows a good length, control in the side suits and i'm told if my partner has anything that may justify a slam try.

[helene_t]

TimG, on Mar 8 2005, 03:10 PM, said:

ochinko, on Mar 8 2005, 05:22 AM, said:

The standard meaning of a takeout double is to let your partner pick up the trump suit.

That's not the end of the story with a takeout double. It could also be the start of a sequence which shows a single-suited hand that is too good for a simple overcall.

It's quite normal here in the Netherlands first to double and then show your own suit without support for (both) unbid major(s). It's less normal in the U.S.

[Free]

Ok, I admit I forgot some higher level ♣ bids... Here's the full hand:

Scoring: IMP

---

As you can see, grand is laydown on some finesses (so it's a poor grand), but small slam is a much better contract imo.

I think 2♣ is the best bid. At our table, opps screwed the hand up:
1♠ - Dbl - 2♠ - 3♥
3♠ - Dbl - all pass
We played 3S*= in EW, and at the other table our partners played 5♣+2.

[luis]

I have a theory but I don't know if it's sound or just my imagination.
I try to make my bids as descriptive as possible to my pd so he can remember similar hands where I used similar bids and know what to expect from me. Since he has more data than the opps he will have valuable info to make a good decision.
So with strange hands like this one I'd never make a "normal" bid like X or 2c since that is usually going to misslead pd, specially in a high level competitive decision.
So whenever I pick a strange hand I make a strange bid or I bid what I think it's the best gamble. That's why I picked 6c. Another reason to bid 6c is that I'm 100% sure the bid will terrorize the opponents, LHO won't know if this is to make, a spectacular save or who knows what. If they are still shocked in the play I can even make 6c when I shouldn't.

Pattern recognition is part of the bridge judgement that your pd uses, when he faces a decision he samples hands he remembers where you did the same as in this auction and decides what he has to do with his cards.
With the club King and a couple of red suit kings if I bid 5c my pd knows that passing is automatic and he won't be missing a slam. And that's one of my reasons to bid 6c because I don't want to blame pd for passing 5c with cards that he won't know are useful for a slam

Maybe it's better to start with X, maybe it's better to start with 2c but I believe your pd judgement can be damaged if he remembers you doubled or bid 2c with a hand like this, for example he will be reluctant to pass 2c when you have a normal 2c overcall just in case you have a hand like this one.
About 5c I have no problem but the next time you bid 1M-5c do you want your pd to go to six with a couple of good cards? Mmmmm....

Maybe my theory is a complete nonsense.

[fred]

For those of you who think that DBL is "ridiculous", would you use a different word if you knew that Meckstroth and Rodwell would DBL on this hand?

I don't know for sure what they would do (I haven't asked them), but based on my experience playing against them and studying the hands that they have played in many tournaments, I think there is a very good chance that they would choose DBL.

As I suggested in my earlier post in this thread, this problem doesn't have a right answer. It is a style and partnership question. In such problems various players will disagree with various answers, but calling an answer "ridiculous" is not much different than calling an answer "right" - none of us know enough about this game to make either assertion.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

luis, on Mar 8 2005, 06:23 PM, said:

I have a theory but I don't know if it's sound or just my imagination.

I try to make my bids as descriptive as possible to my pd so he can remember similar hands where I used similar bids and know what to expect from me. Since he has more data than the opps he will have valuable info to make a good decision.

....

Maybe my theory is a complete nonsense.

Luis, it sounds very much like you are saying the following:

We expect to benefit from incomplete disclosure of methods
We design our bidding system to maximize our chance of creating "special" agreements

If true, this is completely disgusting

[joker_gib]

fred, on Mar 8 2005, 10:33 AM, said:

In such problems various players will disagree with various answers, but calling an answer "ridiculous" is not much different than calling an answer "right" - none of us know enough about this game to make either assertion.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

So true !!!

[whereagles]

Well, the fact that 7C makes is rather lucky. Interchange West and North's hands and even 5C needs clubs 1-1. I wouldn't bid 6C because it requires more than the average slice of luck to make Unless LHO is wiggling in his chair, 5C should do the job better.