5-5 bad hand

[gwnn]

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sxhk6xxxdjxcaj8xx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

RHO opens 1♠. What would you bid?

[Gerben42]

2♠

 

Either weak or strong, preparing us for a save.

[P_Marlowe]

what ever shows this 2-suiter, most likely 2S.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[brianshark]

Bad 5-5s should generally be passed. But this ain't so bad and the colours suggest action. So I'd probably chance a 2-suiter overcall.

[han]

Okay white vs red I will go with Michaels, but let me note that I would not bid it at any other colors. And I don't play it as "weak or strong".

[bhall]

Bad suits, bad hand, bad bid. At IMPs? You guys are animals!

 

I understand that 2♠ might work out, but it is more likely to cause a disaster IMHO.

[Trinidad]

2♠

 

Either weak or strong, preparing us for a save.

I am with Gerben. Partner knows that I can have this (or less). The hand is actually quite good for the bid. It has offensive values and hardly anything on defense.

 

Rik

[whereagles]

joining the "2♠, but only at these colors" bandwagon........

[Apollo81]

favorable definitely michaels, finding sacrifices is really important at favorable

[cherdano]

I also bid 2S but I don't understand the comments that this is a good hand for the bid, this hand has terrible suits and quite a bit of defense. Make ♦J a Q and I would pass.

[mikestar]

joining the "2♠, but only at these colors" bandwagon........

Totally agree.

[jdonn]

PASS!!! Give me some heart spots next time please. No matter how many hearts partner bids my prayer will be that we aren't doubled.

 

I would trade the ace of clubs for the Q if you would throw in the T9 of hearts with it.

[jdonn]

It has offensive values and hardly anything on defense.

Exactly the opposite, it has an ace, a king, stray jacks, and bad suits. Great defense and bad offense. Offensive values without defense would be more like x QJT9x xx KQT9x.

[Cascade]

At this vulnerability this is close to a minimum for our Michaels. I would do it with a bit less if my suits were better.

 

2♠ shows hearts and clubs for us.

[Guest Jlall]

Clear pass for me but I know I am much sounder than most people in this position. I cannot stomach forcing to the 3 level with suits this bad when it is just so easy for them to X us, and if they end up on play I have helped them a ton.

[655321]

Cheerful 2♠ for me.

:)

[whereagles]

I cannot stomach forcing to the 3 level with suits this bad when it is just so easy for them to X us, and if they end up on play I have helped them a ton.

I must say last time I forced the 3 level on such raggy suits, pard went for -800.

 

The good thing was that teammate was in 3NT and played it brilliantly to win a "best declarer play" nomination. Too bad it only restricted our losses to -5 imps.. lol

 

Still, I think I was a bit unlucky.

[skjaeran]

This looks like a very clearcut pass IMO.

 

Pretty little upside bidding here, and a big downside. I've got only defencive values. We can easily go for a number when opps don't even make game. Besides, we help opps a lot when it comes to declarer play.

 

Like Josh and Justin, I'd easily trade away one of my honours for some good fillers in my suits. Then we're talking.

[pclayton]

C'mon guys you have to pass with this.

 

You probably aren't getting to anything profitable at the 5 level, and you have decent defense against vulnerable opponents that are going to stretch to a game.

 

If you Michaels this, you might as well lay your cards on the table and let declarer play the hand that way.

[whereagles]

If you Michaels this, you might as well lay your cards on the table and let declarer play the hand that way.

I refuse to see things by this window only. There's a lot of good things that can happen and one can't just weight the bad ones. If you tell me "the minuses outweight the plusses" then I might accept the reasoning. But to point out the bad stuff only is biasing judgement.

[pclayton]

If you Michaels this, you might as well lay your cards on the table and let declarer play the hand that way.

I refuse to see things by this window only. There's a lot of good things that can happen and one can't just weight the bad ones. If you tell me "the minuses outweight the plusses" then I might accept the reasoning. But to point out the bad stuff only is biasing judgement.

LOL, Nuno, you didn't even provide a reason for 2♠. Like a trout on a lure, you look at the colors and the 5-5 and you jump at 2♠, not even considering the drawbacks.

 

The advantages to 2♠ are:

 

1. We might have a cheap sac in 5♥ or 5♣

2. We might get pard interested in the bidding and compete in a partscore with his flat 11.

3. We might get pard off a poor diamond lead in 3N.

 

I don't consider these to be substantial and yes I think the minuses of 2♠ do outweight the plusses.

[whereagles]

1. LOL, Nuno, you didn't even provide a reason for 2♠.

 

(...)

 

2. I don't consider these to be substantial and yes I think the minuses of 2♠ do outweight the plusses.

1. No reason is better than one-sided reasons only :rolleyes: :) :)

 

2. Ok, better now. As I said, I would bid at these colors, but I must say I haven't had enough experience with butting-in/pass on hands like this. So yeah, you could easily be right, statistically speaking.

[han]

1. We might have a cheap sac in 5♥ or 5♣

2. We might get pard interested in the bidding and compete in a partscore with his flat 11.

3. We might get pard off a poor diamond lead in 3N.

You forgot:

 

4. 2S might be the easiest way to reach a making 4H or 5C.

5. The opponents might have a harder time bidding over 2S than over 1S-p.

 

I do agree that 2S is a disgusting call, even though I said I would bid it. But when listing the advantages you might as well list all.

[rogerclee]

Pass. Bidding could turn out well here, but when it doesn't, it is likely to be a double-digit IMP swing. Plus I would like partner to not always expect such trash from me.