[Phil]

R/W

♠x ♥KT9xx ♦J9x ♣AQJx

1♥ - 1♠ - 2♠ - 3♠;
?

Now?

[JLOGIC]

4H

edit: meh w/r guess I should bid 4C.

[Phil]

JLOGIC, on 2012-February-10, 01:25, said:

4H

edit: meh w/r guess I should bid 4C.

Sorry, youre r/w - fixed

[dwar0123]

I'm stumped, why would the vulnerability make a difference, is it to give partner more info so he might goto the 5 level in a sac against spades if w/r?

Where r/w you want your best chances of making so hide the info from opponents?

[gnasher]

I'd bid 4♣ at any vulnerability.

4♣ invites partner to compete to the five level. If the idea were to find a sacrifice, we might choose to bid 4♣ at favourable but not at adverse. If we knew what to do over 4♠ at some vulnerabilities but not at others, again we would vary our action by vulnerability. On this deal, though, we're expecting to make game and we'd never want to make a unilateral decision over 4♠ Hence we should always bid 4♣.

[ArtK78]

Wouldn't 4♣ be a slam try? This hand is certainly a minimum opening. It has some nice aspects, but it has some serious flaws. Bidding 4♣ would be nice if you could tell pard that it was for competitive purposes only and not for slam purposes, but, unfortunately, unless you are playing adjective bridge (in which you can add one adjective to each bid), you can't do that (4 competitive clubs as opposed to 4 cuebid clubs).

I would pass over 3♠.

Question - which is stronger, passing over 3♠ or bidding 4♥ immediately?

[Hanoi5]

So, does 4♣:

1- Show where our strength is so we (partner) can make a better judgement over 4♠?
2- Show a better lead than hearts in case they sacrifice?
3- Show a great hand with great clubs and an interest in slam?
4- Show one of the above depending on the Vulnerability?

Is this a matter of agreement? If options 1 and 2 are usually right then how do you try to get to slam?

[billw55]

ArtK78, on 2012-February-10, 07:00, said:

Question - which is stronger, passing over 3♠ or bidding 4♥ immediately?

I would think there should be some call that says "I don't have anything that warrants bidding beyond 3♠". If pass isn't it then I don't know what would be. Otherwise partner's 2♠ becomes a de facto game force. Or was that already the case?

Anyway, I would pass. How much more minimum could a hand be? I guess there is the stiff in ops suit but partner may be able to work that out anyway.

[whereagles]

Seems like a normal 4C to me.

[MrAce]

ArtK78, on 2012-February-10, 07:00, said:

Wouldn't 4♣ be a slam try? This hand is certainly a minimum opening. It has some nice aspects, but it has some serious flaws. Bidding 4♣ would be nice if you could tell pard that it was for competitive purposes only and not for slam purposes, but, unfortunately, unless you are playing adjective bridge (in which you can add one adjective to each bid), you can't do that (4 competitive clubs as opposed to 4 cuebid clubs).

I would pass over 3♠.

Question - which is stronger, passing over 3♠ or bidding 4♥ immediately?

No 4♣ is not neccesarilly a slam try. Slam is not at the top of priority chain in this auction and in a lot of competitive auctions. I personally like to seperate GF raises from limit raises, in order to do that i have to give up on 'fit + nat jump shifts' Fit+ natural jump shifts is something i love but playing them for more than a decade i have to admit i am not impressed with their frequency. I am not sure if i would 4♣ with this though, i would probably just bid 4♥


Passing 3♠ is the weakest hand unless 2♠ was GF. If 2♠ is limit raise or better, your pass simply says to your pd "I dont accept game invitation if you have just a limit raise" thus 3♠ can be passed out by all.

billw55, on 2012-February-10, 07:18, said:

Anyway, I would pass. How much more minimum could a hand be? I guess there is the stiff in ops suit but partner may be able to work that out anyway.

I dont think this is a minimum hand after fit. We have a stiff and honors are very well placed in our longest 2 suits. Spots are not bad at all in trump suit.

[gnasher]

Hanoi5, on 2012-February-10, 07:06, said:

So, does 4♣:

1- Show where our strength is so we (partner) can make a better judgement over 4♠?
2- Show a better lead than hearts in case they sacrifice?
3- Show a great hand with great clubs and an interest in slam?
4- Show one of the above depending on the Vulnerability?

Is this a matter of agreement? If options 1 and 2 are usually right then how do you try to get to slam?

It's a matter of agremeent, but in my circles I think the normal meaning is 1.

When the opponents enter the bidding, the chance that we'll face high-level competition goes up, and the chance that we can make slam goes down. Therefore it's sensible to give up some accuracy in the slam zone, in order to gain some accuracy against competition.

If you want to make a slam try with clubs, you bid 4♣ and hope that partner's actions will tell you what you need to know, or that you'll get a chance to make a further move at a safe level.

Edit: another possibility is to use 3NT as a slam try, but you may want that as natural, or as "I'm bidding 4♥ to make".

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-February-10, 08:31

[ahydra]

pass - I'm not interested in competing at the five level with that.

ahydra

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on 2012-February-10, 07:00, said:

Question - which is stronger, passing over 3♠ or bidding 4♥ immediately?

Pass is obviously weaker, because it may lead to defending 3♠ undoubled. Or are you about to tell me that 2♠ is game-forcing?

[ArtK78]

Personally, I like to play that 2NT in competition is a limit raise, which would mean that 2♠ is a game force.

But, without that agreement, if 2♠ is limit or better, then passing over 3♠ is clearly weaker, as it is nonforcing. In my prior post, I was assuming that 2♠ was game forcing.

[billw55]

gnasher, on 2012-February-10, 08:30, said:

Pass is obviously weaker, because it may lead to defending 3♠ undoubled. Or are you about to tell me that 2♠ is game-forcing?

Interesting, you (and others) seem to be treating 2♠ as not GF, but then bidding 4♣ anyway, which obviously forces us to game. Why is this hand that good? What sort of hand would open 1♥ but now pass?

[gnasher]

billw55, on 2012-February-10, 09:59, said:

Interesting, you (and others) seem to be treating 2♠ as not GF, but then bidding 4♣ anyway, which obviously forces us to game. Why is this hand that good? What sort of hand would open 1♥ but now pass?

Something like Kx K109xx Jxx AQx (though we might bid 4♠ anyway to try to talk them into a sacrifice).

The hand in the original post isn't just an 11-count. It has no wastage in the opponents' suit, and the long club is likely to be worth a whole trick.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-February-10, 10:22

[Phil]

Partner held AK QJxx ATxx Kxx and thought 4♣ showed a better hand because it drove to the hopeless slam.

[han]

I don't want to sound like mike777 (no really, I don't), but this is a great point for discussion.

[pooltuna]

hmmm guess I am too old fashioned; for me pass used to show a min opening hand w/5+♥ and I didnt realize I was obligated to bid any second suit with 4+ cards

[Statto]

billw55, on 2012-February-10, 09:59, said:

Interesting, you (and others) seem to be treating 2♠ as not GF, but then bidding 4♣ anyway, which obviously forces us to game. Why is this hand that good? What sort of hand would open 1♥ but now pass?

The hand is improved by both opps bidding ♠. We have just one wasted card in ♠ and no wasted values there. Partner may have some wastage, but at least is sitting over the 1♠ overcaller. For me 2♠ is not GF but shows a good raise to 3 or better. I can't imagine wanting to sit and defend 3♠ possibly undoubled (at whatever form of scoring, though would be nice to know ), so if I can't bid 4♣ because it would be a slam try, I'd bid 4♥ anyway. But I prefer 4♣ just to be showing a 2nd suit with values, committing to game (obviously), so that partner can make the right decision over the almost inevitable 4♠ (at these colours), and if they happen to have the "or better" type of hand they are better placed to judge whether to look for slam in light of this information (or lack of). (And if I had a much better hand I could also press on next round.)

But YMMV