Bid slam?

[catch22]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=skjt2hkq32daj4c76]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

[3D]-5C*-P-?

 

*4C would have clubs and a major

 

What do you bid?

[helene_t]

Pass but it's close.

[gwnn]

under normal conditions this would be a 6♣ wtp hand. like this (non-leaping michaels) I have t pass, VERY reluctantly

[Raivis]

5C is limited bid.

With very strong or distribution hand first bid t/o double (in your agreement) or show diamond shortness/cue bid.

 

PASS.

[whereagles]

I'm a bit better than what could be expected... we might have a major ace to lose and a club... hum.. not easy. I think I pass and take a plus.

[foo]

West,None,IMP,

KJT2_KQ32_AJ4_76

 

(3D)-5C*-P-?

 

*4C would have clubs and a major

 

What do you bid?

"Never preempt a Preempter".

 

Since CHO is, they must not care about my hand.

Therefore 5C is To Play.

 

Since CHO had X and cuebid both available to start a strong auction and did not use them, this is not a strong auction.

 

Pass. In tempo.

 

If We get a bad score, it is far more likely to be bad bidding on CHO's part or bad luck than it is to be our fault for passing with the given hand here.

 

Side note on methods: traditionally one uses the jump overcalls of a preempt to show shapely 2 suiters with great playing strength and reserves the simple overcall for all the hands a more natural call is good for... ...and it saves space for the hands that are more likely to need it.

[Codo]

Do you expect pd to bid 5 Club on xx,xx,x,AKQJTxxx?

Or with a queen more?

I do, but I guess he will bid 5 Club on Ax,Ax,xxx,AKQxxx too.

 

SO I go for slam. I have more then he expectes.

This is the price I pay for playing non leaping michaels: Sometimes I have to guess at a high level.

[hrothgar]

"Never preempt a Preempter".

 

Since CHO is, they must not care about my hand.

Therefore 5C is To Play.

 

Since CHO had X and cuebid both available to start a strong auction and did not use them, this is not a strong auction.

 

Pass.  In tempo.

 

If We get a bad score, it is far more likely to be bad bidding on CHO's part or bad luck than it is to be our fault for passing with the given hand here.

 

Side note on methods:  traditionally one uses the jump overcalls of a preempt to show shapely 2 suiters with great playing strength and reserves the simple overcall for all the hands a more natural call is good for... ...and it saves space for the hands that are more likely to need it.

WTF are you talking about

 

1. As I understand matters, the original saying is that you don't preempt over preempts. This does not mean that a jump overcall by partner means that he doesn't care about my hand. Rather, the standard agreement is that a jump over a preempt shows strength rather than weakness.

 

2. In this case, LHO opened 3♦. The original poster states that a 4♣ bid would show a two suited hand. Its quite unclear whether the "jump" to 5♣ carries the same inferences if a natural 4♣ had been available.

 

3. Where do you get the idea that jump overcalls of a preempt traditionally show two suited hand patterns? My understanding is that bids like

 

(2♦) - 3♥ or

(2♥) - 3♠

 

were used to show strong single suited hands. Its true that conventions like Leaping Michaels have come into vogue. However, my impression is that this is relatively recent.

[foo]

Bidding space is a precious commodity. Even more so after the opponents take some by preempting.

 

Therefore one strains to design System such that hands that are more likely to need a conversational auction have as many sequences as possible available to them, and that means bids that chew up unnecessary amounts of space are "picture bids" where We do not need to have much of a bidding conversation to place the contract.

 

The idea of using jump overcalls in new suits over preempts to show 2 suited hands of appropriate playing strength goes back to at least the Italian Blue Team. It's not even close to a new idea.

 

Hence my point to the OP that they have System backwards from what most would consider standard.

 

As for the OP question within the methods they are using, Overcaller definitely had other ways of bidding a strong ♣ hand:

a= X, then bid ♣'s

b= cue bid, then bid ♣'s

c= X, then cue bid, then bid ♣'s

 

Simply bidding (3D)-5C when we are holding KJT2_KQ32_AJ4_76 implies a 2way bid based mostly on shape by pard.

Something like (xxx.xx.x).AKxxxxx or (Hxx.xx.x)KQxxxxx (or even better the same sort of thing with 8 ♣'s in it) comes to mind

 

Since we can't make any move with putting Us in what may be a bad slam, it's better to take the sure plus rather than risk turning a good board into a bad one.

[hrothgar]

The idea of using jump overcalls in new suits over preempts to show 2 suited hands of appropriate playing strength goes back to at least the Italian Blue Team.  It's not even close to a new idea.

Are you sure that you aren't confusing Roman Jump Overcalls with methods over preempts?

 

I'm at work and don't have access to any of my books on Blue Club so I can't check anything immediately.

 

I do recall that the section on competitive methods discussed using Jump over calls of a 1 level bid to show intermediate strength hands with 2 known suits. (Strong 2 suited patterns were shown with a jump in NT)

 

I don't recall any discussion whether such methods applied over preempts.

 

Unfortunately, none of my World Championship Books date back into the 50s or 60s. I don't suppose than anyone has examples showing jump overcall's of preempts by any of the Italian pairs?

[foo]

Do you expect pd to bid 5 Club on xx,xx,x,AKQJTxxx?

Or with a queen more?

I do, but I guess he will bid 5 Club on Ax,Ax,xxx,AKQxxx too.

 

SO I go for slam. I have more then he expectes.

This is the price I pay for playing non leaping michaels: Sometimes I have to guess at a high level.

With your 1st example, I X then bid ♣'s.

 

With your 2nd example, what strain we should play is much less clear.

If GOP has scattered values and a ♦ stop, NT may be our best spot.

So that looks like I begin with a X as well.

Here I need even less to make a slam, so I may very well cue bid next.

(Especially if pard implies ♦ shortness).

[pclayton]

Bidding space is a precious commodity. Even more so after the opponents take some by preempting.

 

Therefore one strains to design System such that hands that are more likely to need a conversational auction have as many sequences as possible available to them, and that means bids that chew up unnecessary amounts of space are "picture bids" where We do not need to have much of a bidding conversation to place the contract.

 

The idea of using jump overcalls in new suits over preempts to show 2 suited hands of appropriate playing strength goes back to at least the Italian Blue Team. It's not even close to a new idea.

 

Hence my point to the OP that they have System backwards from what most would consider standard.

 

As for the OP question within the methods they are using, Overcaller definitely had other ways of bidding a strong ♣ hand:

a= X, then bid ♣'s

b= cue bid, then bid ♣'s

c= X, then cue bid, then bid ♣'s

 

Simply bidding (3D)-5C when we are holding KJT2_KQ32_AJ4_76 implies a 2way bid based mostly on shape by pard.

Something like (xxx.xx.x).AKxxxxx or (Hxx.xx.x)KQxxxxx (or even better the same sort of thing with 8 ♣'s in it) comes to mind

 

Since we can't make any move with putting Us in what may be a bad slam, it's better to take the sure plus rather than risk turning a good board into a bad one.

Foo, you are so full of crap.

 

5♣ is a real strong call, even if 4♣ is played as Roman. It's not some "2-way bid".

 

I don't know how the OP would play double followed by clubs, but presumably its a flexible hand, and not just a strong hand.

 

This is a very clear 6♣ call. Pard has a long powerful string of clubs and at least one of the missing aces. Assuming LHO has 7♦'s (not a lock I know) eithe pard or RHO has a singleton, so there's no worry in that suit.

 

5♦ is OK too, but I just don't think I have enough to make grand slam noises.

[Apollo81]

I'm not familiar with this 4♣ convention. What do you do when you have AKQJxxx of clubs and out or KQJ8th of clubs and a stick? If the answer is "bid 5c" (I suspect it is) and double on stronger single suited club hands (normal 5♣ bids) then I would pass. I'd certainly raise if not playing that convention.

[foo]

  Foo, you are so full of crap...

Traditionally, a T/O X followed by the bid of a new suit shows a strong hand. Since Eric Kokish has been influencing Bidding Theory, it's been tending to show even stronger hands than it used to.

 

X followed by a new suit has !never! shown a flexible hand. It has always shown a strong single suited hand.

 

X followed by a new suit or X followed by a cue bid are both much stronger hands than a simple overcall or the immediate bid of game.

 

Immediately bidding game is a "I think We have decent chances to make this and no more than this" bid. It is the =weakest= way to get to game of all the ways of bidding a single suited hand.

 

At this point, I've commented on at least 4 or 5 hand types for this auction and how I understand expert consensus is to bid on each. Those examples show a system that handles more hand types more successfully than the system implied by those thinking that an immediate 5C here is odds on for 6C opposite the OP Advancer.

 

Please look at all the possible sequences and the hand types best associated with them before you so blythely state that I am mistaken.

[awm]

Foo himself quoted the rule don't preempt over preempts.

 

What this means is, partner should be bidding 5♣ with some expectation to make. You don't bid on bad hands over preempts, or try to take advance sacrifices over preempts.

 

Now obviously just because partner bid 5♣ expecting to make it doesn't mean he has eleven tricks cold in his hand. He's probably hoping we contribute a couple tricks to the cause. On the other hand I don't think something like seven solid clubs and out is a 5♣ bid.

 

It is trickier because it'd be nice to bid something on a hand like ♣KQJTxxxx and an ace, but you have only eight tricks. Normally this is an easy 4♣ bid, but here you're playing this silly convention where you can't bid 4♣ naturally. I'd give a rough estimate of:

 

(1) If 4♣ is natural, it shows something like 7-8 tricks (5-6 loser). Then 5♣ is something like 9-10 tricks (3-4 loser), and with 11+ tricks you have to find some other sequence to look for slam (or just bid slam).

 

(2) With 4♣ artificial, you probably should now pass with 7 tricks. So 5♣ is something like 8-9 tricks (4-5 loser) and with 10+ tricks you have to find some other sequence. That's the price you pay for using the 4♣ convention.

 

Our hand will typically provide about 3 covers. Obviously opposite the "right hand" it can provide four (i.e. ♠Ax ♥Axx ♦x ♣KQJTxxx) but opposite the "wrong hand" we could be in more trouble (i.e. ♠Ax ♥x ♦xx ♣AQJxxxxx) and may even struggle to make eleven tricks.

 

Anyways, after all this, I concur with what seems to be the field decision -- pass 5♣, but if 4♣ would've been natural then it's worth a slam bid.

[hrothgar]

  Foo, you are so full of crap...

Traditionally, a T/O X followed by the bid of a new suit shows a strong hand. Since Eric Kokish has been influencing Bidding Theory, it's been tending to show even stronger hands than it used to.

The auctions

 

(1♦) - X /

(1♦) - 2♠

 

are hardly equivalent to

 

(2♦) - X /

(2♦) - 3♠

 

Kokish's comments about takeout doubles have always been in the context of competition over one level opening bids. You shouldn't generalize these comments to competitive sequences over two level openings.

[jdonn]

I have said this before, and Richard said it above. "Don't preempt over preempts" does NOT mean "Don't jump over preempts". It means "Jumps over preempts show good hands, not preempts." I am amazed how often that slogan gets misused as support for "Don't jump over preempts" which is just pointless advice anyway.

 

Uday are you reading this? Remember a month or two back when Justin posted a plea to have some sort of appropriate standards for the Adv/Exp forum? Please save us...

 

Inquiry? Anyone?

[foo]

Actually, if ATT and playing 4C artificial you'll probably end up rolling slightly weaker hands into the X, then bid ♣'s catagory and slightly stronger hands into the immediate 5C bid catagory.

 

But I still do not think you'll be odds on for 6C with the OP Advancing hand if Overcaller has bid correctly.

[foo]

I have said this before, and Richard said it above. "Don't preempt over preempts" does NOT mean "Don't jump over preempts". It means "Jumps over preempts show good hands, not preempts." I am amazed how often that slogan gets misused as support for "Don't jump over preempts" which is just pointless advice anyway.

 

Uday are you reading this? Remember a month or two back when Justin posted a plea to have some sort of appropriate standards for the Adv/Exp forum? Please save us...

Let's be clear: are you trying to say that an immediate 5C bid with a single suited ♣ hand is better than any of

a= X, then bid ♣'s or

b= cuebid, then bid ♣'s or

c= X, then cuebid, then bid ♣'s

?

I highly doubt you are, but let's be clear.

 

Jumps over preempts are good hands in that they are Bids To Make. Not in that they are the strongest way to bid said hand shape.

 

Jumps over preempts remove partner from the bidding even more than the original preempt did. Do you disagree?

 

Therefore, jumps over preempts should be reserved for specific hand types that do not need or want much input from partner. Again, do you disagree?

 

Given the existence of 4 ways to bid a single suited ♣ hand playing these methods, and the direct jump to game is the =weakest= of them available to Us if playing these methods, what hands go into each catagory?

 

In short, IMHO people are not taking the full implications of the OP methods into account when they think the OP advancing hand should bid 6C here.

[jdonn]

Let's be clear: are you trying to say that an immediate 5C bid with a single suited ♣ hand is better than any of

a= X, then bid ♣'s

That doesn't show a better hand than this, it is just more flexible, which is another way of saying less oriented toward clubs. If I had to pick, the direct jump shows a better hand since this 4♣ bid is not even forcing.

b= cuebid, then bid ♣'s or

The cuebid shows the majors (michaels), then 5♣ is a control showing bid when partner bids a major.

c= X, then cuebid, then bid ♣'s

I play the double then cuebid is a raise of partner. So again 5♣ is a control showing bid.

 

So the attempted comparisons are moot, except with A which shows about the same strength as this but a different hand type. I don't know where you keep getting "in these methods" from, unless you just mean in your methods in which case I have no comment.

 

And yes I disagree that they remove partner from the bidding. They bring him into it by telling him to a very close degree what you have.

[ASkolnick]

Add my 2 cents worth even though noone will listen. And I will say both sides are probably right.

 

As for Foo's statement, I think there is some merit distinguishing between

Dbl-5C and 5C and I don't think its necessarily flexibility. And I can tell you many times where my partner double with 6-4 type hands and gets us in trouble. I think its "playing strength" versus "HCP strength". So, I think 5C says this is where I think the value of the hand belongs based on partners expected 7 HCP. However, it does not bar partner from bidding again. But, the two things which I think are very important for you to have are controls and support. Its not that lack of aces (AD may not be important) that worries me, its the fact I only have 2 clubs. So, there is still a possibility of losing a major suit ace and possibly a club, so I pass and go plus.

[foo]

So the fundamental problem here is the josh and I disagree about =system=, not simply about the meaning of a bid or two. Where I come from, "the slower you go, the more you've got" in constructive auctions. No matter what level they start at.

 

The slower ways of bidding to 5C here are stronger than the faster paths to 5C for me. Always have been. Very likely always will be. This is also true of just about every expert I know. I actually can't think of an exception of ATM, but josh is a good player so I'll leave him the wriggle room. B)

 

RHO opens (3D) in 1st or 2nd. This tends to show 5-9 HCP. Call it 7+-2 most of the time.

 

If I have 10 HCP, pard's expectation is 11.5, or ~3.5 covers.

 

Thus if my 10 HCP are something exceptional like xxx.xx.x.AKQJxxx, my expectation is 6 losers - 3.5 covers= 2.5 losers,

and I want to bid 5C To Play at any form of scoring.

 

If I have a better hand, say 4-5 losers, 5 losers - 3.5 covers= 1.5 losers. We may have a slam, but GOP and I need to talk to figure it out.

Single suited hands of this type are strong enough to X, then bid ♣'s.

Hands that could be a good dummy for 3N or better are also appropriate for X here.

 

Most are going to play a 4D cuebid here as a GF hand with both S+H, or a =very= big ♣ moose (Grand slam interest ♣ hand for instance).

 

X then cue bid then ♣ bid is probably ~3-4 losers.

 

If we were playing that 4C were Natural, it would be ~7 losers; and would clearly be invitational.

 

Given that We do not have a natural 4C bid available, we have to do something with the 7 loser hands. Some are going to have to be passed. That's the price for playing 4C! artificial. Some single suited ♣ 7 loser hands are going to be assigned to the X, then bid ♣ sequence. Some are going to be assigned to the direct 5C bid.

 

Now look at the OP Advancing hand: KJT2_KQ32_AJ4_76.

6C requires that pard have

at least 2/3 A's +KQJ of ♣'s, or

that trumps are solid and there is only 1 loser in a side suit, or

etc.

If you construct those hands, they are not the uber-strong 7 loser hands. Nor are they 5-6 loser hands that bid 5C To Make.

The hands you need for slam are ones that are best described by the other sequences.

 

Therefore you pass 5C.

[foo]

All of my previous post gets tweaked depending on how many highs you have combined with the assumption that the (3D) bidder has 7+-2 HCP.

 

That leaves 33+-2 out, and one has to look at their hand and decide how many Advancer is likely to have before deciding how to bid what they are holding.

 

If you figure Advancer to have a minimum response to an ordinary opening, you play them for ~2 cover cards.

 

An invitatonal hand opposite an ordinary opening is ~3 cover cards.

 

A minimum opening bid as responder tends to have ~4 cover cards.

 

Once you figure out what the odds say you + Advancer should have between you, then you can decide how safe it is to bid and what is the best path to describe your hand.

 

The main point here is that bridge is a 4 handed game and the proper way to bid a hand is context dependent.

[ArtK78]

Interesting discussion.

 

I had a hand last night in a team game which falls right into this discussion.

 

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=shkjxxdakq8xxxcjx]133|100|Scoring: IMPs

(2♠)-?[/hv]

 

Do you bid 3♦? Double, intending to correct clubs to diamonds? Something else?

 

I chose to double, figuring that I could correct clubs to diamonds at any level. The operative word here is ANY.

 

The auction continued:

 

(2♠) - x - (4♠) - 6♣

(P) - 6♦ - (P) - 6NT.

 

Fortunately, our opponents were not that swift. The AQ of hearts were sitting over my KJxx, but the opening leader decided to lead a spade into my partner's AQT. My partner, who held AQT xx x AKTxxx was able to run the diamonds and squeeze opener in three suits to make 6NT (opener had the ♠K, ♣Q and hearts to lead to his partner's AQ).

[hrothgar]

I'm at work and don't have access to any of my books on Blue Club so I can't check anything immediately.

 

I do recall that the section on competitive methods discussed using Jump over calls of a 1 level bid to show intermediate strength hands with 2 known suits.  (Strong 2 suited patterns were shown with a jump in NT)

 

I don't recall any discussion whether such methods applied over preempts.

So, I made it home:

 

My copy of "The Blue Club" by Garozzo and Yallouze (adapted by Resse) does not cover jump overcalls after a preemptive bid. The book does have a section describing two suited overcalls of one level opening bids. (Please note: The system described is Ghestem and not Roman Jump Overcalls.

 

My copy of "The Blue Club" by Garozzo and Forquet recommends that jump overcalls over a one level opening shows single suited hands. This book does have a short section describing "Overcalls over Opponent's Opening Bid of Two or Three of a suit" which starts with the following statement:

 

Against these opening bids our system uses two conventional bids:  The double and the notrump at level.

 

Double is used as a classic negative double, denying the other majors. Notrump overcalls promise 4 cards in the unbid major.

 

I also checked "The Roman Club System of Distributional Bidding" by Belladonna and Avarelli. Pages 105-107 discuss

 

Overcalls after the opponent has Opened Two of a Suit

 

Jump bid at suit

 

Holding not more than 4-5 losers and a hand containing 2 suits at least 5 cards in length - the suit bid and the suit immediately above it in rank (skipping the opponent's suit).

 

Example:  Over 2 Hearts, holding KQxxx - xx - x - AKQxx, bid 3 Spades

 

So, there is evidence that Roman Club used jump overcalls of preempts to show two suited hands back.

 

However, I still don't think that any significant number of players used jumps shirts over preempts to show two suited hands until relatively recently. And I certainly don't think that a jump overcall of an opening preempt "traditionally" showed a two suited pattern which was your original claim.