[TylerE]

 mycroft, on 2014-May-26, 10:52, said:

I've heard many horrible things around a short club - "I couldn't raise you, you could have been short!" "I had to rebid my AT842, you might have thought I had a doubleton!" "I can't lead your suit; what if it's their 9-card fit?". I think in theory, the short club has its merits (especially if you are allowed to play T-Walsh); in practise, any merit it has is outweighted by the above comments.

That's bad players not bad methods. No system can fix stupid.

[mikestar13]

IMHO, advanced styles which use transfer walsh or the like do well opening 1♣ on a doubleton and should not restrict it to the 4♠-4♥-3♦-2♣ case, especially if your style has a good unbalanced ♦ structure. But I am convinced that 5542 "short club" in an otherwise vanilla 2/1 or SAYC framework is inferior to 5533 "convenient minor". There is no point to this discussion in a 4 card major (for example Acol) framework, so 5 card majors must be assumed.

As for the lead implications a 1♣ opener never suggests not leading clubs--the alternative lead does not need to be as good as in the case of an overcall or a major suit opening, but the alternative should be decent.

Even a fully artificial 1♣ (for example Precision 1♣) which in no way whatever suggests leading clubs does not suggest not leading clubs!

Perhaps your partner of the moment was trying for the "coveted" CHO (center hand opponent) designation.

[jogs]

Stop insisting on a short club while playing pickup. 4=4=3=2. Open 1♦.

[mycroft]

Sorry for the delay, I was away in Penticton and then - disturbed.

 mycroft, on 2014-May-26, 10:52, said:

I've heard many horrible things around a short club - "I couldn't raise you, you could have been short!" "I had to rebid my AT842, you might have thought I had a doubleton!" "I can't lead your suit; what if it's their 9-card fit?". I think in theory, the short club has its merits (especially if you are allowed to play T-Walsh); in practise, any merit it has is outweighted by the above comments.

 TylerE, on 2014-June-22, 19:06, said:

That's bad players not bad methods. No system can fix stupid.

So, what forum are we in? And what was the OP asking?

Obviously, if you have a regular partnership, fix novice (or find another partner because you can't fix stupid). For pickups, especially in the novice game, don't play 5542, because your partner *will* think this, more often than not. You're right - no system can fix stupid, so don't play the system that turns on this stupid in (novice and beginner, potentially for life) pickups?

Also, thanks for the selective quoting. Continuing the quote:

Quote

*IF* you're playing 5542, forget all of that. Assume partner has 3, and bid accordingly (in competition, assume partner has 4, and bid accordingly, just like you would with 5533). If you're playing "clubs or balanced", maybe less so.

The OP looks like she can learn. One of the things to learn is how to use the tools properly. But another is Simon's "how to play your partner". No system can save you if you can't do that - as Simon himself said in 193x...

[rmnka447]

In one of the ACBL Bulletins a couple years, there was an article addressing how often a short ♣ was actually short. As I recall, the article said that it occurred only about 18% of the time.

So lacking a far better lead, not leading a ♣ for partner is an anti-percentage play.

[1eyedjack]

 rmnka447, on 2014-July-11, 12:52, said:

In one of the ACBL Bulletins a couple years, there was an article addressing how often a short ♣ was actually short. As I recall, the article said that it occurred only about 18% of the time.

So lacking a far better lead, not leading a ♣ for partner is an anti-percentage play.

There is usually additional information available. Indeed, if you find yourself on lead this is certain, as opponents have been bidding, and opener has made at least one more descriptive call, even if it was Pass. I should be interested to know if the ACBL bulletin only addressed the a priori odds in a vacuum, ie at the point of opening, and if so how that would compare with an empirical analysis of hands where the 1C opener ends up defending but not on lead. Not that that statistic would be much more meaningful, as the dynamics change according to the precise auction and opening leader's hand pattern, and no one will have stats of that subset available.

[steve2005]

Gib rarely leads a suit you've bid, even if you've shown a 6+ card suit, and those who control it claim it makes good safe leads.