[cherdano]

I read about this hand before I fell asleep, and it still looks interesting after I woke up.

Scoring: IMP

(1♣)-P-(1♥)-P
(2♥)-X-(P)-?

---

What would you have decided if you had been in my place at the t...if you had dreamt about it? (You have enough monkey options to choose from.)

[Apollo81]

Partner has either a (4432) hand with short hearts or a 4144 hand. Since we are red at IMPs I would play partner for actually having a good hand so I guess I'd bid 5♣

[mikeh]

We actually 'know' a lot about this hand, by inference.

We assume that partner has reasonable values.. certainly enough to sustain a 1-level overcall, so he almost certainly lacks 5+ spades... and if he had 5 with too poor a suit to overcall, he'd probably choose 2♠ rather than double.

Similar but less secure inferences pertain to the diamond suit. Partner is less inclined to stretch to bid 1♦ over 1♣, but his silence at that point argues that the odds favour only a 4 card diamond suit or a weak 5 carder.

This means that spades are probably 4=4=4=1 around the table. It seems to me that the most likely fit for us is a 5-3 or even a 5-4 club fit.

So I bid 3♣. I expect partner to be 4=1=4=4 or 4=1=5=3 most of the time. In fact, while I sure am not betting on it even if given good odds, I wouldn't be astounded to find 4=0=4=5 LHO being 4=4=2=3, and RHO 4=5=4=0.

If we have game, it is probably 5♣, since he needs a good hand for game to make and then he won't have a 5 card pointed suit. But he might be a moderate 4=1=5=3 for example, and I don't like the odds of game on most of those constructions: diamonds may be 4-1, as may trumps.

I think I bid 4♣.... may be too high on some hands, but 3♣ just isn't enough.

[pclayton]

Pard has short hearts, doesn't have 5 spades and probably doesn't have 5 diamonds. He has a reason to enter a live auction, so I expect a decent hand. It's even possible pard has 5♣'s here (6 if 1♣ is 2+). The short spades are nice, and there's no wastage in hearts.

We have a great hand. I'm starting with 3♥, and I'll probably push this to 5♣.

[jtfanclub]

The opponents opened one club. My partner had a wide open space to show almost anything. He didn't.

I'll go with 4♣. 3♥ is effectively game forcing, and that's too rich for my blood.

[mike777]

5c

I am going to play partner for:
Axxx...x....AT9x...QJ9x

[jdonn]

4♣ seems perfect to me. No need to punish partner who could be a bit light in this situation. Even if we only have two losers off the top, it may prove difficult to take care of all the hearts in our hand.

Keep in mind you know already that diamonds are not breaking if partner has four of them.

[Cascade]

I think i have ruined your poll.

I was going to bid 4♣ but i hadn't noticed that the opening was 1♣. Then having thought about it decided that it was right to bid clubs anyway ...

... but forgot to jump.

So I voted 3♣ but really meant 4♣.

[Echognome]

I'm sure I will be shot for this comment, but what about 2NT minors, then 4♣ over whatever partner bids?

[jdonn]

Echognome, on Feb 7 2008, 08:23 PM, said:

I'm sure I will be shot for this comment, but what about 2NT minors, then 4♣ over whatever partner bids?

I love the thought process of an idea like that, but I hate actually doing stuff like that (by which I mean initially lying about my hand as part of a 2+ step process that I think will help partner judge.) For example, maybe it continues 3♠ P P and you bid 4♣, and now partner

- Thinks you have both minors
- Thinks you have merely taken the push under pressure but didn't intend to invite

so he has both your shape and strength wrong. I like to just give a good description all at once when possible.

[Sambolino]

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 05:17 PM, said:

5c

I am going to play partner for:
Axxx...x....AT9x...QJ9x

then you better bid six cos 5 is 100%

i think at vul imps one must bid 5c,,, well maybe not if you expect superfrequent 3 card supps from opps (which is rare in my environment). could take very little to make slam too so if i'm sure what pd and i are doing i may bid 3h as well

[Sambolino]

also if pd has bunch of useless spade points he may have made an overcall

[jdeegan]

3♣.
This hand seems pretty much a read out: pard has at least 4-1-5-3 or 4-1-4-4 shape with some useful cards (maybe he has better distribution, but that will come out in the wash once I jump in the auction). I see a good chance to make 10 tricks in clubs (or even diamonds) almost regardless of how minimal pard's hand, but our prospects are far from certain - nine tricks could easily be our limit (pard has four spades, and I can lead up to them only once). I see no reason to bid more than necessary at this juncture since pard will come alive with the kind of special hand we are hoping he has (odds are against his holding this, however).

[cherdano]

I will report on the old MSC vote on this one tomorrow night when I am back home. Meanwhile, are we 100% certain that partner isn't 4252? What if the minors were switched, the auction going 1D 1H 2H X, could partner be 4225?

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Feb 9 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

I will report on the old MSC vote on this one tomorrow night when I am back home. Meanwhile, are we 100% certain that partner isn't 4252? What if the minors were switched, the auction going 1D 1H 2H X, could partner be 4225?

It's possible and probably should be considered by people. But it's a big parlay of partner not overcalling 1♦ on a hand with fair values and the opponents raising hearts with seven of them, both of which are possible but neither of which are relatively likely, and in combination all the less likely.

[Halo]

I voted 3C. Thankfully I seem to be on the same planet as potential partners.

[cherdano]

This is a MSC problem (November 1983). In a panel of 32, there were 9 votes for 3♣, 5 (!) votes for 3♦, 6 votes for 3♥, 10 votes for 4♣, and one vote for 5♣.
Director was Eric Kokish; apparently a little less restrained then compared to today, he argued vehemently for driving to game.
Given that partner won't be able judge well (he doesn't know to downgrade spade honors and upgrade diamond honors), and that even Kxxx x AKxx xxxx offers some (bad) play for game, maybe 4♣ is not enough.

[jchiu]

3♥. Fortunately, I don't live on the same planet as the 3♣, wtp? crowd.

By the way, Han, the animal of choice has changed to LEMURS, since Ken Rexford scared away a statistically significant portion of the monkey subjects.