bid these hands

[rbforster]

How would you bid these hands, starting with South and proceeding uncontested?

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=s9xxh8xxdkqjxxcjx&s=sktxxhadaxcak9xxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

Feel free to comment on if you think it's reasonable to get higher or lower given hands consistent with partner's bidding (as opposed to having the actual hand opposite yours).

[whereagles]

Well, I dunno. Maybe this:

 

1♣ 1♦

2♠ 3♦

4♣ 5♣

[awm]

How about:

 

1♣ - 1♦

2♠(1) - 3♥(2)

4♣(3) - 5♣

Pass

 

(1) I think this hand is worth a game force with the 6-4 shape. If I rebid 1♠ we probably end there, which is not actually awful on the combined hands.

 

(2) I play this as 4th suit force, denying a fit or any semblance of heart stop.

 

(3) Seems reasonable to rebid the six-card suit; 4♦ is also an option and leads to 5♦.

 

It's not totally clear to me which is the right spot, with both 5♣ and 5♦ having some play but not being great. Perhaps stopping at partial is even the winner.

[MarkDean]

I think I would have the short auction:

 

1♣ - 1♦

1♠ - pass.

[Phil]

I think I would have the short auction:

 

1♣ - 1♦

1♠ - pass.

Me too.

 

The 2♠ bidders are resulting LOL.

[kenrexford]

1♣-1♦

2♠(not resulting -- Ax in diamonds makes the difference)-3♣

3♦(diamond honor, probe for slam or 3NT)-4♦(the other two, no major controls, no heart help for 3NT)

4♥(RKCB clubs)-4♠(0)

4NT(Q?)-5♣(no)

pass

[awm]

Me too.

 

The 2♠ bidders are resulting LOL.

Dunno about that. First off, I'm not sure that 1♠ isn't the best contract.

 

Second, I have play for game opposite xxx xxx Kxxx Qxx or xx xxx KQxxx xxx.

 

Third, I see a lot of people rebid 2NT on 4324 hands (for example) primarily because they don't want to be passed in 1♠. This four-loser hand is much better than a 4324 18-count.

[rogerclee]

I see a lot of people rebid 2NT on 4324 hands (for example) primarily because they don't want to be passed in 1♠.

I don't know about "a lot of people", I rebid 2N because it describes the most important feature of my hand (18-19 balanced) to my partner while not describing my spade holding to my opponents, it rightsides a likely 3N contract, and partner can always ask about my spades if he wants to. In addition to this over 1♦ it allows me to bid 1♠ to promise 4+♠ and 5+♣, which is very useful for both choosing the right game and slam bidding. In fact I think you have it backwards, getting passed in 1♠ is a benefit, I would usually rather play 1♠ than 2NT if partner has nothing.

 

In fact, I thought this was "a lot of people's" reasons.

 

Anyway on the actual hand I agree with forcing to game and would end up in 3NT, sorry partner.

[jdonn]

I think I would have the short auction:

 

1♣ - 1♦

1♠ - pass.

Me too.

 

The 2♠ bidders are resulting LOL.

I don't know why making the obviously correct bid is resulting. But LOL is confusing me, maybe you are joking!

[Winstonm]

1C-1D

2S-2N (Lebensohl)

3D (game force) -4D (weak)

5C (pick em) - P (Clubs)

[OleBerg]

One thing is certain, I would start:

 

1♣ - 1♦

1♠

 

as I play it as forcing for one round, while 2♠ is artificial.

 

Either one of these would then happen:

 

1♣ - 1♦

1♠ - 1NT

2♥* - 3♣ (2♥ = 4. suit forcing)

3♦ - 3NT

 

or

 

1♣ - 1♦

1♠ - 2♦

2♥* - 3♣ (2♥ = 4. suit forcing)

3♦ - 3♥* (3♥ = Repeated 4. suit forcing)

4♣ -

 

Now, playing with myself, I would consider 4♣ to be forcing, and raise it to 5.

[Phil]

I think I would have the short auction:

 

1♣ - 1♦

1♠ - pass.

Me too.

 

The 2♠ bidders are resulting LOL.

I don't know why making the obviously correct bid is resulting. But LOL is confusing me, maybe you are joking!

I take it back.

 

The 2♠'rs are just overbidding.

[Winstonm]

I think I would have the short auction:

 

1♣ - 1♦

1♠ - pass.

Me too.

 

The 2♠ bidders are resulting LOL.

I don't know why making the obviously correct bid is resulting. But LOL is confusing me, maybe you are joking!

I take it back.

 

The 2♠'rs are just overbidding.

18 prime highs, 8 controls, 4 losers, and 6421 shape and it is overbidding to force to game? :P

[Cascade]

I'm with Phil I make the obvious 2♠ overbid (if only all my overbids could be this heavy) ...

 

1♣ 1♦

2♠ 3♣

3♥ 4♣

5♣

 

2♠ FG usually around 19 but 18 with extra distribution is middle of the road for me

 

3♣ preference - normally not rebid five-card diamond suit although this suit is so good it would be an alternative action

 

3♥ directional ask

 

4♣ probably wishing i had bid diamonds on the previous round now

 

5♣ we can actually pass 4♣ but tend to bid on based on either extra values or shortage in the 4th suit. Similarly responder would be encouraged to bid 5♣ rather than 4♣ with a stiff heart.

[mike777]

1c=1d(walsh style)

1s( promises 5-4)=p?

[gnasher]

1♣    1♦

1♠(1) 2♣(2)

2♥(3) 3♦

4♣    5♣

 

(1) Forcing, at least 5-4

(2) One of the benefits of playing 1♠ as showing five is that you can do this rather than bending 1NT or 2♦.

(3) Fourth Suit Forcing

[kenrexford]

Interesting hand to play in 5♣. I suppose we probably get a red lead. Normal play is club, club, club, and hope LHO has the third club or RHO has the spade Ace. If the club Queen drops on the first club, small to Jack, back other red, club King, then out a club and hope again.

 

On a heart lead, if the 10 drops on the first club, you can afford to lead a small club to the Jack as a hedge if the spade is right. On a diamond, though, that's too risky.

[gnasher]

After a heart lead against 5♣, it seems better to lead a club towards the jack. With clubs 3-2, both lines need one of two finesses. A low club gains against four of the five 4=1 breaks, whereas Ken's line gains only against singleton queen (and maybe singleton ten). Also, if LHO has a singleton queen, Ken will need ♠A onside, but I won't.

[rbforster]

Well, I dunno. Maybe this:

 

1♣ 1♦

2♠ 3♦

4♣ 5♣

Playing standard, I'm guessing this would be my auction.

 

We were playing my custom version of precision which had a specific bidding sequence showing 4xx6 with ~19-21 and around 4 losers. Sadly, precision bidding isn't the same as precision memory and we landed in 4♠ rather than 4 or 5♣ when partner thought it might be 5xx5 instead. Spades were 3-3 with AQ offside. The defense was humorously poor despite leading and continuing hearts after they won the first trump, and 4♠ actually made instead of going off 3.

[JLOL]

The 2♠ bidders are resulting LOL.

...LOL?

 

They know how to evaluate a bridge hand!

[mich-b]

How about:

 

1♣ - 1♦

2♠(1) - 3♥(2)

4♣(3) - 5♣

Pass

 

(1) I think this hand is worth a game force with the 6-4 shape. If I rebid 1♠ we probably end there, which is not actually awful on the combined hands.

 

(2) I play this as 4th suit force, denying a fit or any semblance of heart stop.

 

(3) Seems reasonable to rebid the six-card suit; 4♦ is also an option and leads to 5♦.

 

It's not totally clear to me which is the right spot, with both 5♣ and 5♦ having some play but not being great. Perhaps stopping at partial is even the winner.

I like this sequence , especially the 3♥ bid , which I think should be reserved for hands without any other good option , and does not show any extras.

 

This gives better definition for other bids (3♣ shows 3 , 3♦ shows 6, etc..)

[kenrexford]

After a heart lead against 5♣, it seems better to lead a club towards the jack. With clubs 3-2, both lines need one of two finesses. A low club gains against four of the five 4=1 breaks, whereas Ken's line gains only against singleton queen (and maybe singleton ten). Also, if LHO has a singleton queen, Ken will need ♠A onside, but I won't.

That makes some sense, but my concern was the serious risk of the spade shift. If you play a club to the Jack, you pick up more 4-1 splits. However, you lose half of the time that RHO has stiff Queen or Qx. By playing the Ace first, and only switching to low if the Queen or 10 shows up, you protect the spade King more often.

 

I'm not sure which wins most often. Probably easy to calculate.

[OleBerg]

How about:

 

1♣ - 1♦

2♠(1) - 3♥(2)

4♣(3) - 5♣

Pass

 

(1) I think this hand is worth a game force with the 6-4 shape. If I rebid 1♠ we probably end there, which is not actually awful on the combined hands.

 

(2) I play this as 4th suit force, denying a fit or any semblance of heart stop.

 

(3) Seems reasonable to rebid the six-card suit; 4♦ is also an option and leads to 5♦.

 

It's not totally clear to me which is the right spot, with both 5♣ and 5♦ having some play but not being great. Perhaps stopping at partial is even the winner.

I like this sequence , especially the 3♥ bid , which I think should be reserved for hands without any other good option , and does not show any extras.

 

This gives better definition for other bids (3♣ shows 3 , 3♦ shows 6, etc..)

In Denmark it is more or less standard, at least among experts, that when you are forced to game, fourth suit shows you have no good bid. This keeps all other options "pure".

 

So in the sequence:

 

1♣ - 1♦

2♠ -

 

2NT = Promises at least one full stopper.

3♣ = Guarantees three card support.

3♦ = Shows a decent six-card suit.

 

I like it.

[gnasher]

I'm not sure which wins most often. Probably easy to calculate.

Yes, very easy. In fact, I thought that's what I'd already done.

 

If clubs are 3-2:

 

- Playing clubs from the top loses if RHO has three clubs and ♠A is offside.

- Starting with a low club loses if RHO has ♣Q and ♠A is offside.

 

These two cases are equally likely.

 

The difference between the lines is when clubs are 4-1. Suppose that ♣10 is never a falsecard, and that you always guess correctly whether it is from Q10 or singleton 10. Your line gains when clubs are 10xxx-Q. My line gains when clubs are Q10xx-x. That's three times as many combinations, and I haven't had to do any guessing.

[rbforster]

In retrospect, I think I'd almost feel better if partner had responded 1♥ instead of 1♦ in terms of the decision to bid the (more obvious) 2♠ rather than a pessimistic 1♠. I spent some time looking at 4M-6m strong hands in the ~19-21 point range and my conclusions (perhaps obvious?) was that these hands are quite strong with a 4-4 major fit, but otherwise playing in the minor was usually best.

 

Taken together, it seems that 4M or 3N are the likely targets for game assuming partner has some values, and without a spade response, 3N seems a closer target than 5♣. Given our heart shortness, a 1♥ responses, especially in Walsh style, would be a lot more encouraging for a likely stopper/lead-deterrent than 1♦ (which very likely denies length in either major and will indicate the ♥ lead against NT once I rebid spades).