choose a course

[Apollo81]

IMPs, all white

 

x Q9x KJx Q1098xx

 

(1c)-1NT-(p)-?

 

 

See poll for options.

[Gerben42]

Yikes, tough problem!

 

Let's eliminate some first.

 

2NT --> With a 6-card suit you don't want to play 2NT. Ever. Out.

Pass --> Where are the ♠? Good odds 3♣ is better than 1NT. And if 1NT is a good contract, so is 3NT...

Invite 3♣ --> Partner has a ♣ stopper so inviting is not going to help us much. And how will he know what the right hand is?

 

Of the remaining 3 I don't really like:

 

Minor oriented GF without ♠ --> I don't really want to play 5♣, or 4♥ in a 4-3 fit on this hand so I will not bid this.

 

Leaves:

 

3♣ signoff --> Might well be right without ♠

3NT --> Always an option

 

I'll go for the low road and bid 3♣. (In the poll I voted 3NT but changed my mind, that's how close I think it is...)

[helene_t]

I voted 3NT. This is a slow hand (even if clubs run, partner probably needs to loose the lead once before he has enough tricks) so partner must have a double spade stop or they must fail to lead a spade. I probably can't express that, and just bidding 3NT increase the chance that we don't get a spade lead.

 

An invite with 2NT has the advantage that it encourages a passive lead but besides that, it's nonsense (see Gerben's comment),

[pbleighton]

3NT.

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

3 NT will invariably draw the S lead into pard's hand. I will do the following. Bid 2S as a transfer to C and then raise to 3NT. Pard will see that the 2 options for game are viable and that I have a trick source (he has to have 2 or more clubs). If the 2S bid gets doubled, he will be even better informed for the 5C game option.

[mike777]

3nt, imps just bid game, next hand pls

 

Frankly I do not understand all this delicate inviting stuff at imps, just bid the darn game and move on.

[jdonn]

I vote for the last option showing 1-3 in the majors with clubs longer than diamonds. If we are not going to use it on this hand (assuming we are forcing to game) then why even play the convention?

[skjaeran]

I'll transfer to ♣ (2♠) and rebid 3♠ to show singleton ♠ and GF. After that I'll abide by partner's decision.

[Apollo81]

I'll transfer to ♣ (2♠) and rebid 3♠ to show singleton ♠ and GF. After that I'll abide by partner's decision.

So you chose the last option given in the poll. I didn't invite you to choose your own methods.

[ohioply]

3NT no need to give ops more info

[Al_U_Card]

Only when it is more important to give Partner the info...and here 5C will be very likely but 3NT may go down like a stone and it has to make 5 to be significantly better.

[whereagles]

3NT seems canonical.

[effervesce]

Bash a 3NT bid-there is a good chance for a club lead, and any more scientific bids (eg transfer to clubs/invite with clubs) will of course tip the opps to not lead a club.

[pclayton]

I never get a club lead on this auction, so 3N is out.

 

I'll invite in clubs and see where that gets me. 2nd choice is the overbid showing the stiff spade and the longer clubs than diamonds.

[cherdano]

I vote for the last option showing 1-3 in the majors with clubs longer than diamonds. If we are not going to use it on this hand (assuming we are forcing to game) then why even play the convention?

Because we might use it on hands that look more like 5m?

[jdonn]

I vote for the last option showing 1-3 in the majors with clubs longer than diamonds. If we are not going to use it on this hand (assuming we are forcing to game) then why even play the convention?

Because we might use it on hands that look more like 5m?

I fail to see why that is not this hand.

 

Axx Axx ATxx KJx (note spades are stopped) where do you want to play?

 

It seems to me like we have no clue whether we belong in 5 of a minor (or 4♥) yet, which is precisely why we play this convention. I am not worried about cluing them into a spade lead since leader is going to be so short of clubs that he will lead his longest suit anyway, which is >90% a spade (in my opinion).

[Apollo81]

Here's my opinion:

 

Pass and signoff in 3♣ are just out. The hand is simply too good. 2NT also seems silly since parnter almost certainly has 3+ clubs. If we are going to force game, then it's clearly better to show our shape since we are almost certainly getting a spade lead against 3NT. So is this hand worth a game force? Maybe. If partner has only one club honor then it does seem like we may have some entry problems in 3NT, and we're underpowered for 5♣ unless pard has a perfecta.

 

I think the right action is to invite in clubs. I don't think the hand is as good as it looks. This is not the action I chose at the table, which was to GF showing my shape.

 

Partner had something like Kxx AJx A87x Axx. Their cards were laid out as expected: clubs makes 4, diamonds makes 3, and notrump makes 2. The GF action gives pard the decision of whether to bid 4♣ (playing you for 1336) or 4♦ (playing you for 1345) which he may get wrong. He unfortunately guessed incorrectly on this hand, and we lost 4 IMPs to 3♣ making 4 at the other table.

 

Well done us.

[whereagles]

I keep seeing people "invite in clubs" with only a top honor or even none. That sort of invite is meant to be done with TWO top honors and nothing on the side (at the very least AJTxxx). With a the 0-1 top honors you just bid it as invitational balanced or signoff or bash game, depending on tactical considerations and the rest of the hand.

[Free]

I choose signoff in ♣ because I don't like this hand at all! You have slow values and an open suit in front of an opener... I just wonder where the tricks are coming from in 3NT. Even 2NT may be too high. And where the hell are all the ♠s?

 

I'm always ready to listen, because pass was my second choice, which Apollo also rejected. :)

[Gerben42]

Inviting 3♣ may seem like the value bid, but what is the point in inviting if partner does not know when to accept? Let's stick together on this one, Free :)

[Fluffy]

I'll transfer to ♣ (2♠) and rebid 3♠ to show singleton ♠ and GF. After that I'll abide by partner's decision.

So you chose the last option given in the poll. I didn't invite you to choose your own methods.

I know you don't like this sugestions, but it is not like you have any rights by posting nor anything.

 

BTW, I bet your bethods don't let you play 2♣ or 2♦, so IMO they are wrong :)

 

 

But any form of scoring or methods this is 3NT.

[Apollo81]

Inviting 3♣ may seem like the value bid, but what is the point in inviting if partner does not know when to accept? Let's stick together on this one, Free :o

At the very least he can accept on AKx of clubs with 18 HCP and reject on a 4 trip minimum. He knows we know he has 1 top club honor. Since some people are saying signoff and some people are saying GF then this has to be close to right.

[Apollo81]

BTW, I bet your methods don't let you play 2♣ or 2♦, so IMO they are wrong.

Yes, I should play methods that let me play in 2♣.

[cherdano]

I vote for the last option showing 1-3 in the majors with clubs longer than diamonds. If we are not going to use it on this hand (assuming we are forcing to game) then why even play the convention?

Because we might use it on hands that look more like 5m?

I fail to see why that is not this hand.

 

Axx Axx ATxx KJx (note spades are stopped) where do you want to play?

Well, if you tell me that partner has 4 keycards for clubs, then I will agree to play 5♣. Otherwise, I think it is just extremely unlikely that 5♣ is the right contract, given how many slow honors we have. (But I am only inviting anyway.)

[skjaeran]

I'll transfer to ♣ (2♠) and rebid 3♠ to show singleton ♠ and GF. After that I'll abide by partner's decision.

So you chose the last option given in the poll. I didn't invite you to choose your own methods.

Huh? I voted for the last option, of course. There was no indication on how you showed that hand in your methods, so I told how to accomplish the task in my methods.