5C?

[cnszsun]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=saxhdqxxcq10xxxxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

(4♥)-?[/hv]

Is this an automatic 5♣?

[pbleighton]

I don't know about automatic, but I'd bid it.

 

Peter

[Fluffy]

don't pre over pre comes to mind, but I would still bid 5♣

[han]

Yes, automatic to me.

[ulven]

It's not automatic. Bidding is surprisingly often right but I'd pass this one with both vul.

[kenrexford]

Absolutely not automatic!

 

You must wait ten (10) seconds before bidding 5♣, if that's your call. :)

[Finch]

No.

I would hate it, but I would pass.

 

(at least when we had KQJ10xxxxx in another thread the honours were all in the suit)

[foo]

I'm with Frances on this.

 

If pd has enough values for Us to actually make something, pd will not pass out (4♥)

 

...and I'd feel like an idiot going down in 5♣ when pd can make 4♠...

[TimG]

I'm with Frances on this.

 

If pd has enough values for Us to actually make something, pd will not pass out 4(♥)

 

...and I'd feel like an idiot going down in 5♣ when pd can make 4♠...

Or, going down in 6♣ because partner could not resist raising with a hand that would have acted after 4♥-P-P.

[Codo]

nothing automativ anymore- after I was convinced that even KQJT9xxx is no automatic bid anymore.

 

I may bid 5 Club with Qx,-, Axx QJTxxxxx, but not with this hand, too many downsides (possible spade Fit, too weak suit)

[skjaeran]

Far from automatic.

I'd be tempted to bid, but pass it is.

Partner is still there.....

[pclayton]

I pass. The only thing I like about this hand, other than the club length, is the short hearts.

 

I might take a call at MPs if it was late in the session.

[P_Marlowe]

No, ... for whats it worth, I pass.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Echognome]

8 clubs and a void heart... I bid.

 

Yes we may get too high and yes it may be a phantom.

 

But we're also putting an awful lot of pressure who will probably have 3 hearts. I certainly don't find it automatic, but I'm not going to go quietly with an 8=3=2=0.

 

Kind of reminds me of the hand I had with Phil where I had a weak hand with a nine card suit and I ended up making a bad decision and phantoming at the slam level, only to win imps on the board when teammates made 3NT!

[keylime]

If I think I'm behind at teams, or if I'm trying to swing at MPs due to standing, I bid. Otherwise I pass and see what pard does.

[gwnn]

clear cut pass. I understand that this can go wrong, but too often partner will raise me to a no-play slam (luckily, with the allowances for short hearts, he won't raise to 7 level).

[awm]

It's unrealistic to assume that partner, who likely has several hearts, will save you. For example:

 

Kxxx

xxxx

AKx

Ax

 

What exactly does partner bid with this nice balanced 14 and four small hearts? I think almost all of us would pass. But 6♣ is really quite good.

 

KQxx

Qxx

Kxx

Kxx

 

I bet this 13-count is a pass also, but 5♣ is virtually cold.

 

Even if partner has the hand to balance 4♠, are you really passing? Couldn't you be cold for 7♣ opposite such a partner hand?

 

Certainly I agree that partner will occasionally raise a making 5♣ into a failing 6♣. But if you pass, I bet 90% of the time your next decision will be what to lead against 4♥. I'd bid 5♣ here. This is exactly the sort of hand that produces double game swings. I'd rather risk the occasional -100 instead of +100 than risk -620 instead of +600. Also, for every time partner raises me to 6♣ on a hand where it fails, there will be a hand where LHO competes to 5♥ or 6♥ over a failing 5♣ or 6♣.

[foo]

It's unrealistic to assume that partner, who likely has several hearts, will save you. For example:

 

Kxxx xxxx AKx Ax

 

What exactly does partner bid with this nice balanced 14 and four small hearts? I think almost all of us would pass. But 6♣ is really quite good.

 

KQxx Qxx Kxx Kxx

 

I bet this 13-count is a pass also, but 5♣ is virtually cold.

 

Even if partner has the hand to balance 4♠, are you really passing? Couldn't you be cold for 7♣ opposite such a partner hand?

 

Certainly I agree that partner will occasionally raise a making 5♣ into a failing 6♣. But if you pass, I bet 90% of the time your next decision will be what to lead against 4♥. I'd bid 5♣ here. This is exactly the sort of hand that produces double game swings. I'd rather risk the occasional -100 instead of +100 than risk -620 instead of +600. Also, for every time partner raises me to 6♣ on a hand where it fails, there will be a hand where LHO competes to 5♥ or 6♥ over a failing 5♣ or 6♣.

I think you bring up some good points, but the most important one is the one we've all, including you and me, only been talking about implicitly rather than explicitly up until now:

 

What's your partnership's agreements and style about who competes when vs preempts?

 

Most I know require that Direct Action be on better or bigger hands than balancing action... ...and define their balancing style based on their definitions of "better" and "bigger" for the Direct seat.

 

So in most of my partnerships, the OP posted hand is a bit weak in terms of Quick Tricks for Direct action.

The corollary of this is that hands like your first example:

Kxxx xxxx AKx Ax

=must= balance in order to protect against direct seat hands like the OP

♠ Ax ♥ ♦ Qxx ♣ QTxxxxxx

That were too weak under this style to take immediate action.

6 control hands with 4 cards in the unbid majors are not common enough to pass IMHO.

 

OTOH, KQxx Qxx Kxx Kxx is likely a problem hand no matter what your balancing style is. C'est La Vie. Preempts work. That's why people continue to preempt.

 

The problem is if we take direct action to protect against pd having this hand, what hands are we risking pd having that would be disasters if we take direct action with the OP hand?

 

As wonderful as your examples are, they don't answer the fundamental questions:

what does the percentage Direct overcall or T/O X look like?

what does the percentage Balancing overcall or T/O X look like?

 

No specific example(s) chosen to support a specific POV are going to answer these questions. Using specific examples to argue general bidding strategy is a form of Resulting.

[pclayton]

This is a hand that most of us would preempt as dealer. Unless I'm playing limitied openings, I can't see opening this with a one bid. Now I'm considering wading into the 5 level with this?

 

5♣ could be right on many levels, but my partners expect more honor strength for action at the 5 level.

 

If LHO raises to 5♥ and partner smacks, I'd be very unhappy.

[skjaeran]

This is a hand that most of us would preempt as dealer. Unless I'm playing limitied openings, I can't see opening this with a one bid. Now I'm considering wading into the 5 level with this?

 

5♣ could be right on many levels, but my partners expect more honor strength for action at the 5 level.

 

If LHO raises to 5♥ and partner smacks, I'd be very unhappy.

That's one good point.

The other is that if we bid 5♣ now, we'll almost awlays be playing 6♣ when 5♣ is making and probably 7♣ when 6♣ is making.

And we might get hammered when it's a bad save (or a phantom).

 

Sure, bidding could be right, but I just don't think that it's the percentage action.

[awm]

There are two philosophies about bidding in these auctions. Basically they are:

 

(1) The person in balancing seat should strain to bid. Direct seat actions are sound, balancing seat actions can be pushy.

 

(2) The person with shortage in the enemy suit should strain to bid. Bidding with length in the enemy suit should be sound, bidding with shortage can be pushy.

 

I think to some degree everyone combines these two attitudes. However, I would make the point that in high-level preemptive auctions (2) makes a lot more sense. The reasoning behind (1) is that the opponents have already passed. This lets you gauge their combined strength, since presumably they would not pass if they think they can make a higher-level contract. That works fine in auctions like 1♥-P-1NT-P-P or the like, where opponents have stopped pretty low and are mostly bidding on values. But it doesn't make sense in auctions like 4♥-P-P, where responder could still be quite strong and have no reason to bid because they are already at the game level. I for one would never consider balancing over 4♥-P-P holding Kxxx xxxx AKx Ax.

[Echognome]

This is a hand that most of us would preempt as dealer. Unless I'm playing limitied openings, I can't see opening this with a one bid. Now I'm considering wading into the 5 level with this?

 

5♣ could be right on many levels, but my partners expect more honor strength for action at the 5 level.

 

If LHO raises to 5♥ and partner smacks, I'd be very unhappy.

I would open this hand 4 or 5 clubs, so I do not see a problem there.

 

I think this goes to show that in order to bid well in these situations, you have to give partner a lot of room for his overcalls and not raise on certain hands, not to mention the fact that when we get to these dizzying heights so early in the auction, there are bound to be bad breaks.

[pclayton]

This is a hand that most of us would preempt as dealer. Unless I'm playing limitied openings, I can't see opening this with a one bid. Now I'm considering wading into the 5 level with this?

 

5♣ could be right on many levels, but my partners expect more honor strength for action at the 5 level.

 

If LHO raises to 5♥ and partner smacks, I'd be very unhappy.

I would open this hand 4 or 5 clubs, so I do not see a problem there.

 

I think this goes to show that in order to bid well in these situations, you have to give partner a lot of room for his overcalls and not raise on certain hands, not to mention the fact that when we get to these dizzying heights so early in the auction, there are bound to be bad breaks.

I understand that partner of the person taking the initial action must make allowances, however, there is a practical limit with what a player can take a call with.

 

If a 5♣ call can be made on: ♠Ax ♥void ♦Qxx ♣QTxxxxxx as well as:

 

♠AQ ♥x ♦AKx ♣KQJxxxx

 

as well as all hands in-between, this seems to be too wide a range.

 

For me, a minimum 5♣ looks something more like:

 

♠Ax ♥void ♦Axxx ♣AJxxxxx

[mike777]

5Clubs.

 

As a few others said 8 clubs and a void in hearts, I am a bidder. No not automatic.

The bidding is not over yet. Partner knows we are bidding under great pressure and should give us a break.

[Echognome]

For me, a minimum 5♣ looks something more like:

 

♠Ax ♥void ♦Axxx ♣AJxxxxx

I respect that there has to be a minimum.

 

The hand you gave is a *lot* stronger than the one above. Three bullets also means a lot more use on both offense and defense. You strengthen your hand a little and you're probably into my 6♣ overcall territory, for example: ♠Ax ♥void ♦AKxx ♣AKJxxxx. Of course, you will tell me that this hand is a *lot* stronger than the minimum you posed.

 

My point is that when the auction starts at the 4 level, the hands are going to be wider ranging. How wide ranging is obviously down to style and judgment. Since style is a partnership issue, it's interesting to hear how people view the judgment aspect.

 

As an analogy, (3X) - 3NT is given as a range of about 16-25 I believe in Lawrence. It all depends on the quality of the hand, the position of the values, and the source of tricks. The mere fact that opponents have taken up so much room means we have to have wider ranging calls. I find it interesting to see where everyone draws the line.

 

Good problem.