Six-six: lots of tricks?

[gnasher]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sa108654hd7caj9542]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♠   pass  1NT  dbl

2♣   4♥   pass pass[/hv]

 

1NT = any non-game force without 3-card support

Over 1NT, the only other way to show clubs was 3♣, game-forcing.

 

Do you agree with 2♣? What do you do now?

[OleBerg]

I agree with 2♣.

 

Now I bid 5♣. Because of the 2♣ bid, partner will know I have a hand with few HCP, but a lot of playing strenght.

[655321]

Agree with 2♣.

 

5♣ now.

[brianshark]

Partner didn't double 4♥ so he can't have much good ♥s and he can only have so many ♦s so he must have 2-3 card support in one of your suits. I agree with 5♣.

[P_Marlowe]

No, I think I would have bid 3C.

 

Now it is 4S.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Cascade]

Bidding 5♣ now takes us beyond our most likely making game.

 

Hence 4♠ is clear.

 

Partner should be able to work out this shows long clubs as how can i have a 2♣ bid previously and a 4♠ now without being highly distributional (and not almost one-suited like 7-4 where i would have opened 4♠ or rebid spades rather than clubs).

[andy_h]

Disagree with 2C. I would've bid 3C which isn't GF but distributional sort of hand. Typical hand is a 5-5 and some concentrated values, but here I have 6-6 which should compensate it :D My style is to XX with strong hands.

 

But given that our constraints are 2C NF or 3C GF, I would bid 2C. After this auction, I now bid 4S.

[Edmunte1]

I don't like playing 3♣ as GF, but agree with 2♣. 4♠ should show this shapely hand now

[han]

Of course 4S doesn't show 6 clubs, you must be joking.

 

3C on the last round should show distribution, not HCP strength but won't partner still expect better highcards than this? I think I would have bid it.

 

Now I'lll guess to bid 5C. It is easy to imagine taking 2 ore tricks in clubs than in spades, and if the opponents bid 5H then partner will be better placed over 5C then over 5S.

[brianshark]

I agree with Han. There is no way pard will take us for 6-6 if we bid 4♠. He will expect 7-4, maybe 7-5 or something like that. I don't buy the logic at all.

 

And pard is far more likely to have a few clubs than a few spades so for the sake of getting the shape across, I'm happily going to the 5-level.

 

With regards to the initial rebid problem, I've been giving it some thought and I'm still not sure what's right. If I was sure pard would take 3♣ as showing shape rather than strength then wtp. But 2♣ seems much safer planning to bid more ♣s later, so that's what I'll do.

[han]

I think partner would expect 6-5.

[pclayton]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sa108654hd7caj9542]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♠   pass  1NT  dbl

2♣   4♥   pass pass

[/hv]

 

1NT = any non-game force without 3-card support

Over 1NT, the only other way to show clubs was 3♣, game-forcing.

 

Do you agree with 2♣? What do you do now?

Would 3♣ really have been GF? I would think xx starts strong sequences.

 

I will close my eyes and bids 5♣ and will greet the 1=3=7=2 dummy with disdain.

[catch22]

Over 1NT, the only other way to show clubs was 3♣, game-forcing.

So what would 4C have been?

[gnasher]

Would 3♣ really have been GF?

Possibly not. This hand was held by my opponents, and I don't know actually know what their agreement was. The fact that they didn't bid 3♣ made me think 3♣ must be game-forcing, but I could well be wrong.

 

So what would 4C have been?

Dunno. Again, I assumed from their failure to bid it that it would have been an autosplinter, or possibly just not discussed.

Edited August 18, 2008 by gnasher

[hatchett]

He will expect 7-4, maybe 7-5

 

I don't think if I was 7-4 I would bother to introduce a 4 card ♣ suit in this sequence, I would just choose an appropriate level in ♠s after RHO's double.

 

The problem with a 5 ♣ call now is it's very commital to strain. If partner has 2♠ we probably want to play in that suit. If he has a stiff ♠ there is a good chance we are beating 4♥ and may or may not be making 5♣.

If I choose to bid here it would definitely be 4♠ which I think should imply at least 5 ♣ for the reasons above.

[Guest Jlall]

I like 4S, I think a lot of the time that partner has a stiff spade LHO is going to double (given RHOs takeout double, LHO will probably have 4 spades then too), and I think partner will have 2 spades a lot of the time anyways.

[gnasher]

I like 4S, I think a lot of the time that partner has a stiff spade LHO is going to double

Are you saying that if LHO doubles, you'll run to 5♣?

[Guest Jlall]

I like 4S, I think a lot of the time that partner has a stiff spade LHO is going to double

Are you saying that if LHO doubles, you'll run to 5♣?

yep

[fred]

Strange (to me at least) that, as far as I can tell, nobody asked "agree with 1S?".

 

Not saying I disagree with 1S, but easy to see how 1C could work better.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[P_Marlowe]

Strange (to me at least) that, as far as I can tell, nobody asked "agree with 1S"?

 

Not saying I disagree with 1S, but easy to see how 1C could work better.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Hi Fred,

 

Do you like flame wars or was the forum to silent

in the last couple of days?

 

I think the 1C openers got smashed, but now they

will come back, ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Guest Jlall]

Strange (to me at least) that, as far as I can tell, nobody asked "agree with 1S?".

 

Not saying I disagree with 1S, but easy to see how 1C could work better.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Omg, so I was playing vs steve robinson and I picked up 6-6 in the blacks and I opened 1C lol. Then I got to 4S and I started laughing and I said "this one was for you stevie" and hes like "YOU OPENED 1C with 5 spades?!" then I had 6... :blink:

 

Anyways, still not convinced by 1C with 6-6 :(

[fred]

Strange (to me at least) that, as far as I can tell, nobody asked "agree with 1S"?

 

Not saying I disagree with 1S, but easy to see how 1C could work better.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Hi Fred,

 

Do you like flame wars or was the forum to silent

in the last couple of days?

 

I think the 1C openers got smashed, but now they

will come back, ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Sorry Marlowe, but I don't understand your post. I still don't see any references to opening 1C and I do think there is a lot to be said for opening 1C (even though I might not do that myself).

 

I read a lot of Forums threads, but the few I tend to get involved in are those in which I think a lot of people have missed some simple key point that is at least worth thinking about.

 

If making such posts constitutes starting "flame wars" then I suppose I like flame wars. Probably you meant something else, but really I have no idea what your reference to flame wars is all about. If you clarify I will be happy to respond to whatever your question is asking.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[P_Marlowe]

Strange (to me at least) that, as far as I can tell, nobody asked "agree with 1S"?

 

Not saying I disagree with 1S, but easy to see how 1C could work better.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Hi Fred,

 

Do you like flame wars or was the forum to silent

in the last couple of days?

 

I think the 1C openers got smashed, but now they

will come back, ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Sorry Marlowe, but I don't understand your post. I still don't see any references to opening 1C and I do think there is a lot to be said for opening 1C (even though I might not do that myself).

 

I read a lot of Forums threads, but the few I tend to get involved in are those in which I think a lot of people have missed some simple key point that is at least worth thinking about.

 

If making such posts constitutes starting "flame wars" then I suppose I like flame wars. Probably you meant something else, but really I have no idea what your reference to flame wars is all about. If you clarify I will be happy to respond to whatever your question is asking.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

It was just a joke, I just tried to be funny, this

showes, I should stop it.

... I usually learn my lessons, at least for a

while.

 

But to clarify:

 

I think opening 1C with 6-6 is similar to opening

1C with 5-5, and this is a "flame war" topic.

 

Actually, I believe, that both styles are playable

as long as you know the consequences.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gnasher]

This was the full hand:

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sq2hj654dkj10952c7&w=sk9h109732dq63ckq10&e=sj73hakq8da84c863&s=sa108654hd7caj9542]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

If you're going to bid, 4♠ is more successful than 5♣. I think 4♠ implies something like 6-5 anyway, so I'd have bid 4♠ and then passed if doubled.

 

At my table they bid 5♣ and went for a large penalty. At the other table, opener bid 4♣ on the second round, getting his hand-type across at a safe level. I suspect that this bid wasn't available to South at my table.

 

4♥ is two down, so defending is best. Maybe those aces and empty suits should make us think twice about bidding over 4♥? West didn't overcall, so it's no surprise to find him with five weakish hearts, giving partner four. No one has bid diamonds either, again suggesting that partner has length there.

[nige1]

Dealer: South Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ A108654 ♥ [space] ♦ 7 ♣ AJ9542

1♠   pass  1NT  dbl 2♣   4♥   pass pass 1NT = any non-game force without 3-card support Over 1NT, the only other way to show clubs was 3♣, game-forcing. Do you agree with 2♣?  What do you do now?

Old fashioned Acol players might open this 1♣, then rebid 2♠ over 1N, and finally 4♠ over 4♥; but Gnasher's 1♠ and 2♣ bids are reasonable and 4♠ seems a fair gamble now; although Gnasher makes an excellent point about empty ace-high suits and the dearth of diamond bids by opponents.