Stuck for a bid

[jschafer]

[hv=pc=n&s=s742hq84d74caq965&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1c(2+%21c)p]133|200[/hv]

This hand came up during a Portland Bowl team match between Imperial College and Oxford and your team has a reasonable lead. You play short ♣ and inverted minors. However at this vul, according to your partnership's style 3♣ might include weak hands like:

♠xxx ♥x ♦xxx ♣QTxxxx.

 

I realise that our system kind of puts us in an akward position but assuming that is what you play, what would you bid?

[mich-b]

1NT. Looks like a reasonable alternative to raisng ♣s , under the given conditions.

As for system I would suggest you have 2 "weak" raises :

one that shows no game interest (about 0-5)

and another that is constructive (about 6-9)

[MrAce]

I'd still bid 3♣. Alternatives are 1♥ or 1 NT. All of them has downsides just like my 3♣, but maybe the hand is not belong to us, we can miss game but non vulnerable, 3 ♣ puts more pressure on opps, and if they still manage to find their way to game, 3♣ can be the only bid that allows us to find a good save at these colors.

[cherdano]

I don't understand 3♣ when partner could be 4432. 1NT looks normal to me.

[ArtK78]

There is an alternative to 1NT and 3♣.

 

The alternative is 1♦. But you have to agree to play that the 1♦ call could be made on a hand such as this one - a moderate club raise that does not fit into your existing structure.

 

If you adopt the 1♦ response on a hand like this, you have to decide whether it makes more sense to emphasize the club suit or the hand as a whole. 1NT on a balanced 8-count is not an unreasonable choice. But if you intend to raise clubs, then 1♦ followed by 2♣ would do it.

[mike777]

1nt

 

I guess I dont get what the issue is here. 1nt looks 100% standard and normal.

 

 

8-10 hcp

bal hand

deny 4 card major

deny long diamonds.

deny weak shapely hand with long clubs

1nt does not promise stoppers in the other 3 unbid suits.

[kenrexford]

1♦, 1♥ or 1♠, depending on which partner I have.

[Finch]

If I have decided to have a gap between the 3C bid and the 2C bid, then I have to bid 1NT on this hand.

[whereagles]

as frances.

[jschafer]

I bid 1♦ at the table but considered all of the bids people have mentioned so far. 1NT seemed to wrong side NT with those suits but maybe I was being paranoid.

[mike777]

I bid 1♦ at the table but considered all of the bids people have mentioned so far. 1NT seemed to wrong side NT with those suits but maybe I was being paranoid.

 

This is going to be a very common auction, why make up fake suits. :)

 

 

I am not worried about wrong siding; why bother to have a 1nt bid at all then. In any case if you drop short club and inverted minors( for crisscross) you can bid 2c with this hand type. :)

[nigel_k]

I don't like inverted minors either but everyone seems to play them now.

 

1NT might be tolerable on this hand but I think you need either a second way to raise to 3♣ or give up on doing it with really weak hands. What about hands that are more shapely, e.g. x Qxx xxx AJ10xxx?

[ArtK78]

This is going to be a very common auction, why make up fake suits. :)

 

 

I am not worried about wrong siding; why bother to have a 1nt bid at all then. In any case if you drop short club and inverted minors( for crisscross) you can bid 2c with this hand type. :)

 

The 1♦ bid is not making up a fake suit. You have an agreement that a 1♦ response shows either a "normal" 1♦ bid or an in-between raise to 2♣. If you follow up the 1♦ response with 2♣, it is the club raise. Otherwise, it is "standard."

 

I was introduced to this treatment in the original Romex book back in the 70s.

[mtvesuvius]

Clear 1N, if partner's suit was diamonds I'd be more inclined to try 1♥.

[xxhong]

gotta have more ways to raise in C. Now only 1NT makes sense to me.

I used to play

1C: 3C(gf)

2D(invitational)

2H(gf raise, void somewhere, gf)

2S (constructive raise with about 7 to bad 10)

2N (balanced invitation)

3C (weak, preempt)

 

Of course, if you want to incorporate fit showing jumps, you can eliminate some levels.

Perhaps something like:

2D(fit showing jump in either D/H/S, later 2H: relay, 2S/NT/3C: fit jump in D/H/S.

2H(inv raise)

2S(constructive raise)

2N( balanced inv)

3C (weak, preempt)

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s742hq84d74caq965&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1c(2+%21c)p]133|200[/hv]

This hand came up during a Portland Bowl team match between Imperial College and Oxford and your team has a reasonable lead. You play short ♣ and inverted minors. However at this vul, according to your partnership's style 3♣ might include weak hands like:

♠xxx ♥x ♦xxx ♣QTxxxx.

 

I realise that our system kind of puts us in an akward position but assuming that is what you play, what would you bid?

[gszes]

there are good/bad things about all bids. The mere act of opening is inherently dangerous if it is not a stong 2. Do not let tiny % chances like p being 4432 change your basic bid. You may decide to can 5542 if promising 4th dia rarely shows good results and inhibits your ability to bid 3c on hands like this. Do not deviate from basic strategy (bid 1d) w/o thoroughly duiscussing it with p. They will believe you have diamonds (which you do not) and a huge disaster can occur plus a weakening of partnership trust.

[han]

I agree with Bayer-Hinden et al that 1NT is "normal", but I think that 1H is a reasonable try.

[Hanoi5]

I'd bid 1NT with this kind of hands but I haven't gotten great results. If you're winning the match 2♣+3♣ later might be enough.

[Phil]

1♥ is very weird and would not occur to me. If I'm going to hedge, I'd rather bid 1♦, since if partner goes bananas, I have a good chance to getting back to clubs. I have zero chance of bidding clubs if partner raises hearts.

 

I will bid an unimaginative 1N.

[gnasher]

If I were to bid a non-sut, it would be 1♠ (but with the given methods, 1NT is obvious).

[han]

Could you all enlighten me why 1H is so bad that even 1D and 1S are better?

[gnasher]

I'm not sure that it's worth spending lots of time discussing which is the best of three rather random psyches. Since you ask, however, I prefer 1♠ to 1♥ because the upside is greater - it's more likely that they can make something in spades, and more likely that discouraging a spade lead will help us, and 1♠ is more preemptive than 1♥. The risk is slightly greater too, but I think that the difference in risk is less than the difference in potential gain.

[JLOGIC]

loled @ bayer-hinden et all. <3 hanp so much.

 

I've never understood why people don't just have 3 raises for the minor, preemptive, mixed, and inv+. I mean, this is not that uncommon of a scenario. I would bid 1N given the methods though.

[Phil]

loled @ bayer-hinden et all. <3 hanp so much.

 

I've never understood why people don't just have 3 raises for the minor, preemptive, mixed, and inv+. I mean, this is not that uncommon of a scenario. I would bid 1N given the methods though.

 

Or even four raises. Agree a mixed raise is nice here.

[Finch]

loled @ bayer-hinden et all. <3 hanp so much.

 

I've never understood why people don't just have 3 raises for the minor, preemptive, mixed, and inv+. I mean, this is not that uncommon of a scenario. I would bid 1N given the methods though.

 

I do, in ascending order of strength 2NT, 3C and 2C.

But it is questionable quite how many ways you should have to raise partner's 1C opening. Particularly because the 3C bid never seems to come up.