kgr Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 [hv=d=s&v=n&s=sxxhakqtdckqt8xxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]Bidding:1♣!-(1♦)-1♥!-(3♦)3♥-(P)-3♠-(P)?1♣: You open 5542, so could be 2-card1♥: transfer to ♠, 4+You agree with your bids till now. What do you bid now. (should 4♣ be forcing)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 3♥ was GF so 4♣ is forcing. Even if we were not in a GF I generally follow Ed Hogenkamp's principle that 4m is forcing unless it can't be. 4♣ now. I don't think my 3♥ bid denied 3 spades, I don't think p promises 6♠, and even if he has 6 spades and/or 3 hearts I think we belong in clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 I would bid 4C now.I don't really care if it's forcing or not - if partner passes, we won't have missed game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 4C, whatever it means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 I would have opened 5♣ in first seat... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 I would have opened 5♣ in first seat... How much of your hand does this show? I don't mind good 5minor pre-empts but they need to be reasonably narrow range otherwise you will miss a lot of slams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 I can't see how 4♣ can be anything other than forcing. I'm not sure about 3♥ on the previous round but that might depend on partnership expectation. What would double have shown? Is there any danger that partner will think that 3♥ is a 5-6 hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 I would have opened 5♣ in first seat... Naah, not at these colors. I might open 5♣ at favorable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 I'd rebid 4♣ now. That's forcing to me. Opening this hand 5♣ is...... I haven't got words for that. To me bridge is a partnership game. This isn't close to a 5♣ opening at any colours. I don't think I'd contemplate that even if I were absolutely desperate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 I join the 4♣ club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_h Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 I'd rebid 4♣ now. That's forcing to me. Opening this hand 5♣ is...... Agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgr Posted February 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 [hv=n=sk9xxxhxxdqxxxcjx&s=sxxhakqtdckqt8xxx]133|200|[/hv]I did bid 5♣ now.LHO did lead ♠8 for RHO's ♠T and RHO continued with the A and a small ♠, ruffed high by me (LHO disacarding a ♦) and I followed with high ♣ taken by LHO with the A.LHO now played a ♦, ruffed by me and a ♣ to the J, RHO discarding a ♦.As LHO still had a ♣ I tried an unsuccesful finesse of the ♥T for 5♣-2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 I would have opened 5♣ in first seat... How much of your hand does this show? I don't mind good 5minor pre-empts but they need to be reasonably narrow range otherwise you will miss a lot of slams. I tend to open 4M or 5m pretty much any time that I have a 7-4 pattern. (I've done it with hands quite a bit stronger than this one). I agree completely that this style isn't particularly good for find slams. However, that isn't much of a concern for me. In my experience, its very difficult to have any kind of controlled auction when you have this much shape. I rather get the hand off my chest with a single bid and start worrying about the next board. True, you lose some precision. At the same time, the opponents are under a lot more pressure... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 Opening this hand 5♣ is...... I haven't got words for that. To me bridge is a partnership game. There's the rub... I don't consider bridge a partnership game. I have one partner, I have two opponents. I prefer that they're constantly under as much pressure as possible, even if it means that partner is in the dark some time. Take a look a some of the discussion about two handed versus four handed bridge... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 I would have opened 5♣ in first seat... How much of your hand does this show? I don't mind good 5minor pre-empts but they need to be reasonably narrow range otherwise you will miss a lot of slams. I tend to open 4M or 5m pretty much any time that I have a 7-4 pattern. (I've done it with hands quite a bit stronger than this one). I agree completely that this style isn't particularly good for find slams. However, that isn't much of a concern for me. In my experience, its very difficult to have any kind of controlled auction when you have this much shape. I rather get the hand off my chest with a single bid and start worrying about the next board. True, you lose some precision. At the same time, the opponents are under a lot more pressure... I understand that but I want reasonable odds that the pressure is going to work to my advantage. Look at the actual hand above. Its a 20-20 hand where noone can make anything and while it is possible that one of the opponents will think he has a bid and get into some trouble i think it is much more likely to go Pass Pass Pass and we have just succeeded in getting our side into trouble. In my experience 5minor seems so seldom the right spot or rather so often wrong when noone can make anything that I like to put relatively strict constraints on when we open it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 Opening this hand 5♣ is...... I haven't got words for that. To me bridge is a partnership game. There's the rub... I don't consider bridge a partnership game. I have one partner, I have two opponents. I prefer that they're constantly under as much pressure as possible, even if it means that partner is in the dark some time. Take a look a some of the discussion about two handed versus four handed bridge... I'd be worried that 5♣ was playing one-handed with this hand ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yogeshdg Posted February 19, 2008 Report Share Posted February 19, 2008 This hand should be opened 2 clubs in my opinion. Then you will easily find 5clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 19, 2008 Report Share Posted February 19, 2008 I have one partner, I have two opponents. I prefer that they're constantly under as much pressure as possible, even if it means that partner is in the dark some time. I think this misses the point that whatever information you can provide about your hand, whether it's a little or a lot, tends to do partner a LOT more good than the opponents, far more than twice as much good. I realize this may involve letting them also give themselves information about their hands, but the simple view that you definitely have information you want to convey whereas they may or may not seems logical. Also, similar to what Cascade said, when you have a long major there are very good odds 4 of that major is your optimal contract. There are much smaller odds this is true for 5 of your long minor, all the more when you have a major on the side. Can you direct me to any of the discussion (I assume you mean a general online discussion over time as opposed to one particular discussion) about two vs. four handed bridge? So I don't altogether hijack the thread, for the original question I'm sure I would have raised spades without thinking hard, but that 4♣ is a better bid that wouldn't really have occurred to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 19, 2008 Report Share Posted February 19, 2008 Can you direct me to any of the discussion (I assume you mean a general online discussion over time as opposed to one particular discussion) about two vs. four handed bridge? Try Cathy Chua's book "Fair Play or Foul". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted February 19, 2008 Report Share Posted February 19, 2008 Opening 5♣ is not 4-handed nor 2-handed bridge. It's 1-handed bridge :) Note: I'm not saying it's bad bridge. I do it all the time :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted February 19, 2008 Report Share Posted February 19, 2008 Can you direct me to any of the discussion (I assume you mean a general online discussion over time as opposed to one particular discussion) about two vs. four handed bridge? Try Cathy Chua's book "Fair Play or Foul". I really enjoyed that book and find the 2 vs 4 stuff a very interesting shift in thinking. I'm not sure I'm in either camp full time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 19, 2008 Report Share Posted February 19, 2008 I am almost sure that opening 5♣ is most likely to cost, at any colors. We might belong in hearts. We might be going down against nothing. We might miss slam. When I say I might open 5♣ at favorable (and indeed 1st seat at IMPs) it's because the (less likely) gain could be quite large, such as being allowed to play a sac undoubled, or opps bidding 5♦/♠ and going for a phone number. (Edit: now thinking more about it I realize that the undoubled sac is not much of an issue, 5♣ doubled is unlikely to cost more than 300 if nonvulnerable). Besides, opening a nebolous 1♣ in a likely to be contested auction does not guarantee accurate bidding either. As the actual auction developped, we were not unlucky. Opps were kind enough to allow us show hearts at the 3-level, and to allow p first to bid 1♠ and then 3♠. Even so, it is not easy, there is a lot of confusion about what we have actually shown by bidding 3♥ and now 4♣. Since none of the experts here show sympathy for a 5♣ opening (it would have surprised me if many experts would have opened 5♣, even at favorable) I believe it would be a losing bid in a serious partnership. My perspective is different, though. The fact that some ps may take 4♣ as Gerber or as a cue for spades makes me less happy about opening a nebolous 1♣ with wild distributions. Also, the Dutch bidding fora that I read are dominated by a preempt style which is much less diciplined than what is prevalent in MSC. It wouldn't surprise me if one of the Dutch panel members would have opened this hand 5♣ at favorable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 19, 2008 Report Share Posted February 19, 2008 Also, similar to what Cascade said, when you have a long major there are very good odds 4 of that major is your optimal contract. There are much smaller odds this is true for 5 of your long minor, all the more when you have a major on the side. I'm at work right now and don't have access to my bridge library, however, I seem to recall an old Bols Bridge Tip that (essentially) said that Swans should always play in the long suit. Obviously, this is an over-statement. I'm sure that folks can construct plenty of hands where a its best to play in the 4 card suit. However, there is more than a kernel of truth to the assertion... 1. More often than not, the hand is going to play best the long suit2. While there are some examples where it will be better to play in the 4 card suit, the odds that you'll be able to judge this accurate at the table aren't all that good. Note the "real" discussion on this hand: There are all sorts of opinions about what 4♣ should show... Is this forcing?Is it none forcing?Does it show clubs?Is it a cue bid in support of Spades? I readily agree that there are risks associated with a 5♣ opening. However, its ludicrous to assume that your going to enjoy a perfect constructive auction if you open 1♣... I might miss slam, but I'm not going to miss game. Furthermore, with luck the next time that I open 5m (or 4M) the opponents are going to have to worry about a broader range of hands. (For what its worth, I didn't invent this theory... I've always heard it called Burgess's Rule: If you get dealt a Swan, you open it at the game level) BTW, I have tried to extend the same concept to 7-5 hands. It doesn't seem to work well at all.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted February 19, 2008 Report Share Posted February 19, 2008 "(For what its worth, I didn't invent this theory... I've always heard it called Burgess's Rule: If you get dealt a Swan, you open it at the game level)" Yes it is called Burgess' Law and it is a philosophy he espouses.Fwiw, I agree with Richard and would open 5C. Helene, you wouldn't want to put down a 7 card C suit in a H contract, would you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 19, 2008 Report Share Posted February 19, 2008 If there is ever a swan that wants to play in the 4 card suit, it's one with a long minor and AKQT of a major? In fact, on this hand it seems very like you will want to play in your doubleton suit. I never tried to imply 1♣ will always or almost always lead to a perfect constructive auction. I was trying to say that whatever bids you get to make beginning with a 1♣ opening are going to be far far more useful to partner than to the opponents. I don't feel there is any controversy about 4♣. It is clearly forcing and clearly natural as far as I'm concerned. To me the bottom line is this hand is far too good to worry about the opponents, and far too complicated to needlessly guess both strain and level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.