[MickyB]

There is a difference - it is MPs, -140 could be a lot worse than -80

[pclayton]

It really depends what our negative double agreements are. If pard is forced to pass with an 8 count lacking 4 spades and club support, then we have to do something.

If pard can bid 1S to show 4 and double to show some values, then Im much better placed and am comfortable passing.

[Al_U_Card]

MickyB, on Oct 21 2005, 10:02 AM, said:

There is a difference - it is MPs, -140 could be a lot worse than -80

True, but pard didn't bid 1NT either, so our side has minor suit cards and enough points to keep them from game......I feel that they will make the same number of tricks in either major suit..

[Echognome]

Jlall, on Oct 21 2005, 04:00 PM, said:

Given the pass of 1H, 5-4 spades seems very likely. Would RHO really pass with 6 spades and a stiff heart? Maybe some would, but I wouldn't. With a 5-1 heart break, 3-3 clubs is getting less and less likely. If you agree spades are probably 5-4, it's getting even less likely. The normal percentages do not apply.

Either way... the hands where we have something on are too remote to worry about. Was just trying to construct a hand where bidding was rational and yet we are missing something. I'm still passing.

[jdeegan]

2♣..... It's time to play a deep game on this one.

Partner neither bid one spade nor made a negative double, nor did he make a preemptive bid in spades (assuming that were available to him). According to my friend Binomial Bob in consultation with the Available Spaces guru, odds of partner holding less than four spades are well under 10%.

Odds of his holding a penalty pass of one heart are too slight to be worth considering.

Looks like pard is broke. Even five HCP seems a lot, but it may well be our hand.
So, I have to consider the following:

1) My hand is not a bad trick producer with 4 or 5 clubs and a couple of red suit tricks. I want to play the hand at a low level.

2) I don't want to encourage a spade bid from partner unless he has a decent six bagger or seven cards. As Justin pointed out, this danger more or less rules out 1NT.

3) Getting too high is a real danger vulnerable. This makes me hesitant to bid 2♦. It is possible for partner to have a big diamond fit and shortness in clubs, but that's a risk worth taking IMO.

4) A 2♣ reopener sounds meek, and it makes it hard for anyone to bid spades. I don't want anyone to bid spades.

5) With the HCP's so evenly split and no big fits uncovered in one complete round of bidding, I do not expect the auction to take off. The two level may be high enough.

Therefore, I am going to get devious and MASTERMIND the hand with a 2♣ call.

[luke warm]

Fluffy, on Oct 21 2005, 07:53 AM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 21 2005, 10:31 AM, said:

well i'm sure fluffy will post the full hand, he always does... maybe defending 1H works out well, maybe not

Grrrrrr, if there is anything I hate it is to be predictable

i think it's a good thing.. everyone likes to see the full hands and what happened at the table

[Winstonm]

Wimp that I am, I pass. Double should be heart shortness or a bigger NT and I have neither of those things. If partner has a smattering of cards with club support we will be outbid in spades - if partner has spades he had too little to scrounge up a call - either way we lose.

[whereagles]

2♦. I doubt opps will have the guts to bid their spades after this reverse. And even if they do, the spades won't break.

For the record, I have tried this kind of pass on ocasion, only to find out that very often it led to bad scores. The hand seems to be ours, so we must seize it.

[Fluffy]

---

I reopened with 2♣ to make some big emphasis on the right lead, feeling 2♦ should be a bit stronger (6-4 or so) on this bidding, it turned to be a mistake because partner didn't have the rightinfo to double 3♠.

Luckilly after 2♣ tricks declarer ruffed, then tried first to lead ♠Q from dummy (not allowed), then ♥Q 5 seconds later (not allowed either ). And Finished playing trumps horribly from hand and losing the trump control, only my careless discards allowed them to score the 7th trick.

It took me 2 minutes to make a bid here, and I think my guess on the level on my opponents was a deciding factor this time.

[Trpltrbl]

I would open the hand 1♦, so I don't have a rebidproblem.
Most of my pd's play the same way, so we know that it is possible that the 5-4 is the other way around.

GBB

[han]

Fluffy, on Oct 23 2005, 06:01 PM, said:

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ Kxxx ♥ Jx ♦ xx ♣ 10xxxx ♠ AJ9x ♥ A108xx ♦ AJx ♣ x ♠ Q10xx ♥ Qxx ♦ 10xxx ♣ Jx ♠ x ♥ K9x ♦ KQxx ♣ AKQxx

I think that this is a very interesting hand. If I remember correctly I was the first to reply, and I said that passing was too much of a position for me. I feel that I've learned a lot by reading the other replies.


I think partner's hand is interesting too, I would have bid for sure. I believe that there is no hand with 5-card support and a four card major that can't bid. You are either good enough to show your major, or you are not, and then you somehow make a weak club raise.

I have bid 3C with hands like this many times and usually it was good. I have never asked good players about this maxim of mine, so I would be interested in your opinion (you meaning anyone, whether you think you know what you are talking about or not).

[mikeh]

I agree with Hannie: the North hand should NOT be passing. I also agree that this is a hand on which it is right (more often than not, but not always) to ignore the ♠ suit: jump to 3♣ preemptively.

Hands on which the at-the-table decision worked after partner misbid (or, at the least, took a questionable action) do not add much to the understanding of the game: they tend in fact to work counter-productively by casting the table action into an artificially good (or bad) light.

I am not suggesting that we only saw this post because the table result justified reopening: it is an interesting hand. It would have been just as interesting had the at the table result been -620 (or -200 or so in 3♣ after a 2♦ balance). However, the conclusion suggested by the result might be a little different

[jdeegan]

mikeh, on Oct 24 2005, 04:51 PM, said:

I agree with Hannie: the North hand should NOT be passing. I also agree that this is a hand on which it is right (more often than not, but not always) to ignore the ♠ suit: jump to 3♣ preemptively.

Maybe so, but in the world of five card major suit openings, partner will have only three clubs often enough that I don't feel comfortable raising to three clubs initially (esp. if vul). The choice between bidding 1♠ vs. 2♣ doesn't seem very interesting.

[mike777]

come on....2 or maybe 3 clubs is just fine by north...bid fast and be quiet.

I prefer only 2clubs since have no outside stiff but can live with 3 clubs.

Once again it seems partner had the real problem, not us. .

[Free]

I would've doubled with the North hand and signoff if possible at 3♣ after South reverses.

[Fluffy]

I disagree, why should you preemt with a balanced hand at teh 3 level vulnerable with a suit headed with teh 10 when you can have only 8 trumps? its like asking for -200.

[Rebound]

Suppose North doubles. Say East now bids 3♥, what's South gonna do?

I like 3♣. Seems to me it should work more often than not.

That's all from North's perspective, of course.

On the hand as actually given, I voted for 2♦ but I agree 2♣ may be better.

[Al_U_Card]

Free, on Oct 25 2005, 05:19 AM, said:

I would've doubled with the North hand and signoff if possible at 3♣ after South reverses.

100%. Show your hand, especially since pard can have 4 S cards. Your hand will make 4C anytime, but 4S only when pard knows about the 8 card fit. You can apply the brakes with C bids and pard will get the message.

[Al_U_Card]

Now, change the hand to Kxxx,Jxx,xxx,xxx or Kxxx,Jx,xxx,xxxx and pass so that pard can reverse into S so you can show your hand with a S raise......that 5th C is all the difference.