2, 3, 4, 5, 6?

[TylerE]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=s2hqtdk8cajt85432]133|100|Scoring: MP

(1♦) - ?[/hv]

[karlson]

2

[mtvesuvius]

Twa.

[655321]

4♣ for me here.

 

2♣ is of course fine as well, but I don't like any other calls at all.

[Phil]

4. Trade some potential at 3N for jamming or finding a good sac.

[rogerclee]

2♣, violently opposed to 4♣.

[JLOL]

I think 4 is really ludicrous, I'd bid 2C.

[jdonn]

2, and I generally love to bid 4. Not here.

[Gerben42]

2♣, violently opposed to 4♣.

 

Would 4 be Ace asking? :)

 

Agree with simply bidding 2, or 3 if that's intermediate for you at this vuln.

[Codo]

4 ♣

[OleBerg]

2♣ seems obvious.

 

The only other remotely edible alternative is 5♣ (what I would bid if opponents forces me on the next round), but the case for bidding it is much to weak.

[whereagles]

4♣ should work well.

 

2 leaves them all the space to find a major suit fit

5 seems like an overbid, since all they can do is double

3 might work well too, but 4 puts more pressure

[benlessard]

4,5,6 are a joke.

 

I prefer 3 to 2 because i believe my hand is perfect for 3 in the style i play.

 

we are liberal on outside strenght and suit requirement.

[whereagles]

hum.. seems like half the world are comedians.

 

maybe we should start a circus?? :(

[mtvesuvius]

hum.. seems like half the world are comedians.

 

maybe we should start a circus?? :(

They can be called the "Minus 800" Circus, featuring:

 

The Amazing Overbidder

The Daring Doubler

The Light Overcaller

The Psycher

 

and the list goes on... :)

[dake50]

All that appeals to me is 4C or pass to 'walk the dog'. Majors too weak to hope they don't have 4M near.

[wclass___]

Easy 3♣ for me.

 

4♣ - 2nd choise

 

2♣ is simply disgusting

LHO will feel comfortable and safe, he definetly has a bid he likes after 2♣. Partner woun't be pleased with situation. He is also likely to think ''on average'' and expect a bit more there and a bit less elsewhere. I expect many on-bidding problems after 2♣.

[Rossoneri]

2 would be my choice.

[andy_h]

First instinct is 2C to have a constructive auction and to judge better at our next round. Thinking about it more 4C is becoming more attractive. 2C won't pose a threat to LHO for the "1D-(2C) auction" since we hold so many clubs and so LHO should have some easy bids. I'll up the ante and give them a guess with 4C.

I don't like 3C.

[benlessard]

minus 200 vs no game is a likely result when partner does have a stiff clubs. Partner can be near a 5431 shape with some scattered values or he can have crap with a stiff club and the ace of diamond.

 

Bidding 3C is safe, it allow possibly 3 nt on our side, it place us well for sacrifice at 5C and make life a bit more difficult for the opps than 2C. What more do you want ?

 

Why risk a near bottom -200 just to make life a bit harder to opps.

[Codo]

3 ♣ leaves them enough places to find the best game, even 3 NT.

 

So why take the risk to let them find out about their best fit at an easy level?

 

When they would know that your partner is 541 and that they have no fit and no game on their side, 4 ♣ would be a big risk. But they don't know it.

 

And when partner is 5341, who knows, maybe rho will double with 4/3 in the majors and LHO will take spades into a 4/3 fit?

 

I think with 3♣ you have the worst of both worlds. Not as construcitve as 2 Club and not as preemptive as 4 club. And at least for me it would never ever show a good 8 card suit. But taste differs.

[whereagles]

Bidding 3C is safe, it allow possibly 3 nt on our side, it place us well for sacrifice at 5C and make life a bit more difficult for the opps than 2C. What more do you want ?

Suppose LHO is 43 majors and RHO 44 majors.

 

If you bid 3♣, LHO can double and RHO will bid 4♣ and opps land in the right major.

 

If you bid 4♣, LHO can still double, but now RHO will have to guess which major to bid. He may guess wrong.

 

The point is 4♣ should be preferred to 3 whenever it's safe enough to bid it. This hand seems safe enough to me.

 

5♣ isn't a good deal because opps are going to let you play it (doubled or not) 90%+ of the time and your playing strength probably won't be enough for it.

[mtvesuvius]

4♣ is IMO losing bridge. If you go down 2, the opponents must have a game. If you go down 1 doubled, the opponents must have a game. If you go down 3 doubled the opponents must have a slam. With 7 losers in our own hand, how many of those are we really expected to get rid of without losing the fact that the opponents make game? 3♣ often will not go down too many, but it's too easy for the opponents to find a makable game or partscore if they have one, and partner with a decent hand that may make 3NT will pass. 5♣ was already established as suicide, so that leaves 2♣. 2♣ has little pre-emptive effect, but works whenever partner has a good hand, or when partner has trash. It also doesn't commit to anything yet, since you can always rebid 4/5♣ if partner raises.

[whereagles]

What's losing bridge to me is to count the hand for 7 losers :P

 

Pard's club expectancy is 1-2 cards and even if he has 0, clubs can break 2-2 or 3-1 with singleton honor. There's also a chance opps lead a diamond or that you manage to get to dummy to play a a diam to the king.

 

I would count it as 5,5 or 6 losers, but never as 7.

[wclass___]

IMO 4♣ is simply a bit too much. I want to drag opps into guessing, but

if you bid 4♣, it's you who have made the major guess.

 

3♣ on the contrary allows for them to enter the race more freely and judge wrong. I have enough def values to expect many of their games to go down.

I simply doun't see necessity to bid 4, 3 does put enough pressure.

 

Clear pressure bid