how to bid 6C?

[myfish]

[hv=pc=n&s=s3ha3dq42cak76532&n=saj42hkj942dajcq9&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1h2s3cp3nppp]266|200[/hv]

[mgoetze]

The given bidding is not really horrible, both have some extras but I wouldn't say either underbid a lot. From South's perspective, just imagine North having ♠KJxx instead of ♠AJxx... suddenly slam becomes a lot less attractive. That said, if either is going to do more here, it would need to be South, and the thing to do would be to bid 4♣ over 3NT. That should motivate North to drive to slam with his extras and controls.

[mike777]

ya south needs to move on with 4c with a 5.5 loser hand and take a chance.

[Cyberyeti]

It's actually quite a decent 7♣.

 

If anybody is going to move I think it has to be S, going to 4♣ over 3N is not silly particularly if 4N is to play over this by your agreements.

[blackshoe]

I envisioned a bit different auction: 1NT-3♣-3♥-4♣-4NT-6♣.

 

<shrug>

[Cyberyeti]

I envisioned a bit different auction: 1NT-3♣-3♥-4♣-4NT-6♣.

 

<shrug>

My partner always has Qxxx, Qxx, xx, xxxx when I open 1N on something like that and instead of +110 I go down 5.

[mgoetze]

My partner always has Qxxx, Qxx, xx, xxxx when I open 1N on something like that and instead of +110 I go down 5.

So obviously you need to get a new partner. ;)

[RSClyde]

I'll go back in time and open 1nt. The problem is that the north hand is basically balanced but doesn't really fit into a range that south can anticipate.

As south Id reason: partner either

1) Has a weak no trump in which case I should pass.

2) May or may not have some extras but has a stiff club, in which case I should pass.

3) Has 18-19, in which case he should have bid something other than 3nt when I created a game force, so scratch that.

 

Most people hate it (5/4) in the majors, but this is one those hands that you gain on.

[Cascade]

I'll go back in time and open 1nt. The problem is that the north hand is basically balanced but doesn't really fit into a range that south can anticipate.

As south Id reason: partner either

1) Has a weak no trump in which case I should pass.

2) May or may not have some extras but has a stiff club, in which case I should pass.

3) Has 18-19, in which case he should have bid something other than 3nt when I created a game force, so scratch that.

 

Most people hate it (5/4) in the majors, but this is one those hands that you gain on.

 

sure this hand opposite this particular hand but there are a host of other hands where opening 1NT means you might miss the best spot of 4Major.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

sure this hand opposite this particular hand but there are a host of other hands where opening 1NT means you might miss the best spot of 4Major.

I just read a Bobby Wolff newspaper column where he said " ... with 5 4 2 2 hands and a 5 card major, never open 1NT ... "

[RSClyde]

sure this hand opposite this particular hand but there are a host of other hands where opening 1NT means you might miss the best spot of 4Major.

I understand that. They both work and don't work sometimes.

[RSClyde]

I just read a Bobby Wolff newspaper column where he said " ... with 5 4 2 2 hands and a 5 card major, never open 1NT ... "

 

I hate blanket statements like that ("Don't open a weak 2 with...", "Don't overcall with...", "Don't open 1nt with...") because they fail to take into account the rest of your system. Playing vanilla 2/1 with no negative inferences those generalizations may well be true. (I don't know that's it's clearly so: has anyone ever actually tested this? But let's say that it is, it's probably only slightly so.) But something can be right from a systematic perspective even if it is slightly antipercentage.

 

Say for example, we agree to open 2♠ every time we have 6 spades and the requisite point range no matter how much the hand doesn't feel like it. Perhaps the hand will come along where, overtime, the long run winner would be passing instead of opening 2♠. That isn't enough to make 2♠ the wrong bid. Every time partner doesn't do that I'll know that he doesn't have that hand and I can begin getting a picture of his hand in my mind. It's also true that he won't have to worry about trying to describe that hand later and so those bids become free to mean other things. The effects of the systematic approach can be felt on such a vast number of hands.

 

For my partner and I, no trump openings are such a thing. When I here a 1♠ opening I begin painting a picture of his hand, and a 5422, 15-17 is one hand that I know he doesn't have. That's not an inference that I'm willing to surrender.

[Codo]

I think opening 1 NT is quite bad bridge with both majors- of course this usually wortks if partner has no fit, but you loose many opportunities for making partials in the majors.

And south should look for slam with 4 ♣ over 3 NT.

[gwnn]

4-5-2-2 is a much better shape for opening 1NT than 5-4-2-2 as you will have problems after 1H-1NT; ?. I think JLOGIC even said he played 1NT-p-3♣(puppet)-p; 3NT to be specifically 4522. Of course you shouldn't open all 4522 within range 1NT but with AJ-Qx in the minors it's well within reason I think. Yep if partner has 0 hcp in the minors and a double fit we will not fare very well but luckily when he has more than 0 hcp in the minors we will have rightsided notrumps.

[RSClyde]

4-5-2-2 is a much better shape for opening 1NT than 5-4-2-2 as you will have problems after 1H-1NT; ?. I think JLOGIC even said he played 1NT-p-3♣(puppet)-p; 3NT to be specifically 4522. Of course you shouldn't open all 4522 within range 1NT but with AJ-Qx in the minors it's well within reason I think. Yep if partner has 0 hcp in the minors and a double fit we will not fare very well but luckily when he has more than 0 hcp in the minors we will have rightsided notrumps.

I used to think the same thing until I thought through it one day. Partner is no more likely to have 4 hearts when you open 1♠ than 4 spades when you open 1♥.

 

For now let's assume that partner can't raise your suit and isn't creating a game force. (Otherwise it's probably the same)

 

Let's say that partner has 4 of the other major with percentage X.

 

Consider these 2 auctions:

 

A) This occurs on (100-X)% of hands

1♥ 1nt

2♣

 

B This occurs on 100% of hands

1♠ 1nt

2♥

 

Is auction B really any better than auction A, on the (100-X)% of hands when partner doesn't have 4 hearts? At least on auction A you might get to stop in a long minor.

 

So X% of time I find a fit in the other major, and (100-X)% I scramble at the 2 level, either way. The only difference is that you, as opener, find out whether you have a fit faster with 5 hearts and 4 spades rather than conversely.

 

Again, my style is open 1nt with all of them. But I get that many players don't like that. However it's probably equally sound (or not) no matter which way you're 5-4 in the majors.

[PhilKing]

I like 1NT. You have a pretty ugly rebid problem over a 1NT response (surely the most likely response) and you are probably right-siding the contract.

[gwnn]

RsClyde, sorry to me it seems like responder can decide better when he knows about 9 cards in opener's hand than when he only knows about 7 (or maybe 6!). Of course he has more space after 1H-1N; 2C and there are nice schemes to use that space but usually opener's minor-suit length is obscured. So the minor-suit scramble is illusory in my opinion. In the meantime even in those "(100-x)%" of the cases we get to play 2H in 4-3 fits (with a singleton spade in dummy it will usually be a nice contract) whereas you cannot find 2S in 3-4 fits and will have to settle for 2H or guess to play in your long minor (passing 2C is particularly dangerous as opener can still be quite strong).

[RSClyde]

RsClyde, sorry to me it seems like responder can decide better when he knows about 9 cards in opener's hand than when he only knows about 7 (or maybe 6!). Of course he has more space after 1H-1N; 2C and there are nice schemes to use that space but usually opener's minor-suit length is obscured. So the minor-suit scramble is illusory in my opinion. In the meantime even in those "(100-x)%" of the cases we get to play 2H in 4-3 fits (with a singleton spade in dummy it will usually be a nice contract) whereas you cannot find 2S in 3-4 fits and will have to settle for 2H or guess to play in your long minor (passing 2C is particularly dangerous as opener can still be quite strong).

Passing 2♥ is no less dangerous. In either case if responder fails to find another call, opener's rebid is the final contract and his extra values remain a mystery. With the 5♥,4♠ hand I guess you can bid 2♠ over a heart correction, if you want to describe your distribution. (Though that sounds like you have a stiff diamond) I'm not, however, a big believer in quantitative game bidding being that scientific.

[Fluffy]

I like 1NT. You have a pretty ugly rebid problem over a 1NT response (surely the most likely response) and you are probably right-siding the contract.

When you open a 5 card major with 5 cards partner has an expected length in your suit of 2.67, surely this means he has support more often than not.

[PhilKing]

When you open a 5 card major with 5 cards partner has an expected length in your suit of 2.67, surely this means he has support more often than not.

 

That would also be true if we were 3532. Anyway, just because we have a 5-3 fit does not mean it's right to play in the major. For instance, if pard has a 2344 10 count, I am pretty relaxed about playing 3NT rather than 4♥.

 

To me, this hand screams no trumps, and I wouldn't be shocked if 3NT was better opposite balanced hands with three hearts (2-3s 3h 2-5d 2-5c).

[Codo]

I doubt that the hand will play better in 3 NT if partner is 3325 or 3352, but anyway. Do we really need to care for 3 NT or 4M in our opening bid? I mean, don't we all have sufficent tools to find our fit and our hand pattern (not exactly of course, but the direction?) below game?

 

So we need to care for our partials and I am still not convinced that 1 NT will rate better then 2 spade/2 Heart in the long run, even with the nice honours in the short suits.

 

But I must admit, that I may be influenced by a quite convincing tool here, which makes bidding quite easy with these hands. In a weak NT context we use the Kaplan inversion followed by transfers from opener. So here, I would bid 1 ♥ 1 ♠ 2 ♥ to show 5+ hearts and 4 spades 11-17 HCPS. So far it worked really well for us. I have not checked whether this will work in a strong NT context too, but I guess it should.