Natural 1C - what is your style?

[Cascade]

What is your style with this monster?

 

This hand was given to me by a friend in a face-to-face tournament at the weekend. I did have a hand record but seem to have misplaced it so you will have to do without the spots but I think they are largely irrelevant.

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sxhdakjxxxxcxxxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP

1♣ (Pass) ?[/hv]

 

4+ clubs (probably in a weak NT context although I did not confirm this)

[MarkDean]

I bid 1♦ and do not think it is close.

[mtvesuvius]

1♦ wtp

[mike777]

I'll risk 1d.

 

over a 1major or 1nt rebid I will rebid 2d=game force and artificial, tell me more.

[hanp]

1D, forcing.

[mikeh]

1♦, not understanding what other calls could be suggested... looking forward to being enlightened.

 

There may be a problem on the next round, but there needn't be... there doesn't, really, seem to be any right now.

[Cascade]

1♦, not understanding what other calls could be suggested... looking forward to being enlightened.

 

There may be a problem on the next round, but there needn't be... there doesn't, really, seem to be any right now.

1♦ gives the maximum opportunity for the opponents to bid their majors.

 

I just wondered whether others would choose some other more pre-emptive action.

[awm]

Knowing that partner has 4+♣, it seems reasonable to start with a splinter bid of 3♥. We will have good play for slam opposite many hands where partner has good clubs (heck ♣AKxxx and out and we have good play for slam). The jump is high enough that it might make it hard for opponents to interfere. And in a weak notrump structure partner is quite likely to have five card clubs or extras (okay he could be 4414), further increasing our slam prospects.

 

While bidding diamonds is okay, it will often take a lot of calls to set clubs in a forcing way after this. If opponents intervene things may become quite awkward; for example:

 

1♣ - Pass - 1♦ - 1♠

Pass/1NT - 3♠ - ???

 

Now 4♣ and 5♣ and 4♦ are presumably very passable. Bidding 4♠ is forcing but it's not obvious it's a club raise (rather than a forcing diamond call of some sort) and it doesn't really communicate the nature of the hand either. Double could easily be passed.

[JLOL]

I bid 1♦ and do not think it is close.

this

[NickRW]

3♥ splinter seems the least of all evils to me.

[Impact]

Doesn't anyone like 2D immediately which shows the fine quality of the suit ...sure by standard jumps you have too little defence but it si anotehr advertisement for fit-showing....and gives you every chance to complete the picture whatever the level it comes back to you (asuming it is not a weak jump shift).

 

This way opener will value his D cards and get the gag when you bid C at a high level....

[Codo]

As partner has promised 4+ clubs, I do not search for a diamond fit and give them all the space they need to find their fit(s).

 

3♥ is it, second choice a high number of clubs 5, or 6.

[whereagles]

I'm ok with 1♦. After all, we're not selling out below the 5-level, so no need to rush.

 

And if pard happens to be strongish, jumping around may not be best: suppose it goes

 

1♣ 3♥ (splinter)

3NT

 

How do you feel?

[Cascade]

I'm ok with 1♦. After all, we're not selling out below the 5-level, so no need to rush.

 

And if pard happens to be strongish, jumping around may not be best: suppose it goes

 

1♣ 3♥ (splinter)

3NT

 

How do you feel?

Fine and thanks for asking.

 

I bid 4♣.

[helene_t]

Playing English style (p would have opened 1M with 4M4♣ unless specifically 4=4=1=4), I bid 6♣. With Scottish style I am not quite sure but I am not going to bid 1♦. Maybe 5♣, or 3♥. I don't believe 1♦ gives us extra bidding space, opps will be at the 4-level next round.

 

3♦ is normally a splinter but I think it's better to play it as a fit-bid since most splinter-hands would have a major suit to bid first. If 3♦ is a fit-bid I bid that.

[whereagles]

I bid 4♣.

Well, ok. You are, ofc, aware pard may have something like a balanced 12-14 and wimpish clubs? :)

[gnasher]

I 'm never going to know whether it's right to play in 3NT, so I'm not going to try.

 

I bid 3♥, then over 3NT I bid 4♦. If partner cue bids either major I can ask for keycards. If I play 30/41 and he bids 5♦, I'll surprise him by passing.

[gnasher]

Well, ok. You are, ofc, aware pard may have something like a balanced 12-14 and wimpish clubs? :)

He said "probably in a weak NT context". For the purpose of the problem I think we should assume it's definitely a weak notrump context.

[Cascade]

I bid 4♣.

Well, ok. You are, ofc, aware pard may have something like a balanced 12-14 and wimpish clubs? :)

I am 80+% sure they were playing a weak NT. I know one of the partnership usually plays that way and I suspect they other does.

 

I didn't ask when I was given the hand.

 

I did ask and 1♣ definitely shows 4+ clubs.

[whereagles]

Oh. Sorry, I missed that part. Then 4♣ is far more appealing, of course.

[Old York]

Psych 1♠ then support Clubs?

 

It is quite possible that oppo have 6M while we have 6m

 

Tony

[Cascade]

Psych 1♠ then support Clubs?

 

It is quite possible that oppo have 6M while we have 6m

 

Tony

Possible but very unlikely even with this freak.

 

My simulations suggest 12+ tricks are available to both sides less than 1% of the time.

 

Some other statistics:

 

We have an average of 9.9 clubs;

 

They have an average of 9.8 cards in their longest combined major;

 

The median total trumps (clubs + their longest major) is 20;

 

We have a double dummy slam over 60% of the time;

 

They have a double dummy slam less than 5% of the time;

 

Around 75% of the time we have a slam they have a paying sacrifice;

 

When we have a game (around 30%) half of that time the opponents have a paying sacrifice.

 

My first thoughts on seeing this hand was to make it difficult for the opponents to bid a major.

 

So I suggested bidding a lot of clubs.

 

A splinter to 3♥ might work too especially if it shows a void which is what I normally do.

[gnasher]

We have a double dummy slam over 60% of the time;

 

...

 

Around 75% of the time we have a slam they have a paying sacrifice;

These figures, together with the fact that sometimes we'll have a slam that's down double-dummy but making on the wrong lead, suggests a direct raise to 6♣. I did consider that, but rejected because I thought we'd miss a grand slam too often.

 

Probably a stupid question, but did your simulation take into account that RHO didn't bid over 1♣?

[Cascade]

We have a double dummy slam over 60% of the time;

 

...

 

Around 75% of the time we have a slam they have a paying sacrifice;

These figures, together with the fact that sometimes we'll have a slam that's down double-dummy but making on the wrong lead, suggests a direct raise to 6♣. I did consider that, but rejected because I thought we'd miss a grand slam too often.

 

Probably a stupid question, but did your simulation take into account that RHO didn't bid over 1♣?

I usually do something fairly crude unless I want a very accurate result or I think it is going to make a lot of difference.

 

For this simulation I hadn't done very much to constrain the opponents' cards.

 

I put in some fairly basic contraints on RHO and repeated the simulations so that now RHO was constrained:

 

1. No 6-9 HCP with a 6+ suit

 

2. No 8-15 HCP with a 5+ suit

 

3. No 11-15 HCP with close to classic Takeout double shapes

 

4. No 16+ HCP

 

The numbers then became over 1000 deals double dummy:

 

Our average clubs 9.8 (slightly down)

 

Their average in best major 9.7 (slightly down)

 

Median total trumps 20 (same as before)

 

Our slam 64% about the same as before I just quoted 60+ last time and can't remember the number but it was between 60 and 65

 

Their slam just over 1% (down a bit)

 

Paying sacrifice over our slam just over 70% (down a bit)

 

We have game a little under 30% (down a little)

 

They have paying sacrifice over our game 45% (down a little).

 

When I was given the hand my thought was to bid 6♣ immediately.

 

When I gave the hand to my partner she thought 3♥ showing a void would be best since we have the method. I am not convinced but I am not convinced that it is wrong.

 

1♦ seems to be a sure way of getting a small plus (or minus if they judge later correctly not to dive).

[Old York]

I never psych (well, hardly ever) but a very similar hand came up in a goulash tourney, and opp also had slam, so I bid their suit and it worked. It will probably be another 10 years before I consider doing it again

 

Tony

 

b.t.w Happy Birthday for yesterday, Wayne ;)