west bid

[maris oren]

[hv=pc=n&w=s52htdkt2cakq8642&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1c]133|200[/h

 

opponents (N-W) play percision. we play Sayc. After S bid of 1 ♣ what should W bid?

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=pc=n&w=s52htdkt2cakq8642&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1c]133|200[/hv]

 

opponents (N-S) play percision. we play Sayc. After S bid of 1 ♣ what should W bid?

 

Corrected to what I think you mean:

 

This is all down to agreements, most people play conventional defences to a strong club, but 3♣ ostensibly a WJO understates your hand but is not unreasonable

[HardVector]

Playing against strong club systems (as well as some short club systems), you should abandon Michaels cue-bids. I think that is the real question you are asking here. Since 1♣ isn't a suit, you need 2♣ to show a legitimate suit. Additionally, when they open diamonds and say "could be x" where x is 2 or less, you should use a 2♦ bid as natural. In both of these cases, there are other ways to show the majors, but they need to be discussed with your partners.

 

Playing 2♣ as natural, 3♣ is not unreasonable. The flip side, is that you have 7 likely tricks if partner has a club or two and if partner can come up with 2 tricks, 3n is a good shot. I'd bid 2♣ planning to rebid 3♣.

[Cyberyeti]

Playing against strong club systems (as well as some short club systems), you should abandon Michaels cue-bids. I think that is the real question you are asking here. Since 1♣ isn't a suit, you need 2♣ to show a legitimate suit. Additionally, when they open diamonds and say "could be x" where x is 2 or less, you should use a 2♦ bid as natural. In both of these cases, there are other ways to show the majors, but they need to be discussed with your partners.

 

Playing 2♣ as natural, 3♣ is not unreasonable. The flip side, is that you have 7 likely tricks if partner has a club or two and if partner can come up with 2 tricks, 3n is a good shot. I'd bid 2♣ planning to rebid 3♣.

 

2♣ natural is far from universal, there are many 2 and 3 suited variants over a strong club, and many bids are destructive in nature because that's much more common than this sort of hand, you just need to be clear what you're doing.

[pescetom]

2♣ natural is far from universal, there are many 2 and 3 suited variants over a strong club, and many bids are destructive in nature because that's much more common than this sort of hand, you just need to be clear what you're doing.

 

Our (admittedly simple minded) agreement is that double shows both majors, 1NT both minors and 2♣ shows clubs.

What alternative meaning would you propose for 2♣?

[Cyberyeti]

Our (admittedly simple minded) agreement is that double shows both majors, 1NT both minors and 2♣ shows clubs.

What alternative meaning would you propose for 2♣?

 

WJO clubs or 3 suited without is not uncommon (a transfer version also exists), defences where you show 2 suiters also exist. Another is to play as I do with one partner, 2♣ = WJO diamonds or both majors.

[Tramticket]

What alternative meaning would you propose for 2♣?

 

There are many methods. I play Truscott with one partner:

-1D = diamonds and hearts

-1H = hearts and spades

-1S = spades and clubs

-2C = clubs and diamonds

-Dbl = clubs and hearts

-1NT = diamonds and spades

-Jumps = single-suited (usually weak)

 

3C would be normal for us on this hand.

[helene_t]

4♣ is maybe ok at this vulnerability.

 

You could also pass, the idea being that first pass then bid is stronger than bidding directly.

 

Over 1♠, it's just a simple 2♣ bid.

[jillybean]

Without other agreements, it may be best to play natural over the opponents stong 1♣.

So bid your suit, 2♣ would be clubs.

 

I play transfers over any strong opening so

X => ♣

♣ => ♦

♦ => ♥

♥ => ♠

It's simple and has the advantage of putting the strong hand on lead.

[Cyberyeti]

4♣ is maybe ok at this vulnerability.

 

You could also pass, the idea being that first pass then bid is stronger than bidding directly.

 

Over 1♠, it's just a simple 2♣ bid.

 

Pass and then a jump to 3♣ over 1♣-1♦-1M probably shows about this

[sfi]

Pass and then a jump to 3♣ over 1♣-1♦-1M probably shows about this

I've played a lot of strong club over the years, and I would love it if the opponents always passed on the first round before they preempted. We get to exchange both range and shape information safely, so we can make a much better decision over your eventual 3C bid. You're much better off interfering initially and denying us of some of our bidding tools - getting to the three-level quickly is what will put strong club bidders at a comparative disadvantage.

[helene_t]

I've played a lot of strong club over the years, and I would love it if the opponents always passed on the first round before they preempted.

But the idea is that the delayed 3♣ bid (or 2♣ if you prefer) is not a preempt - it is a constructive bid. The upshot is that direct action denies constructive values. Most hands that want to interfere don't have constructive values anyway, and it gives partner some freedom that they know they can mess around after our interference as they want - pass a conventional notrump overcall, raise on random hands, psyche etc.

 

Of course it becomes a bit less safe for partner to interfere after we pass, but I don't think that's a major issue.

 

It would be nice to be able to bid 3♣ or 4♣ with this hand, but the question is if the hand is too strong. Partner won't take any action with Axxx-Axxx-xx-Qxx. But maybe that's a price worth paying. We may not be able to find 3NT anyway, and maybe the chance that we can make 3NT (or 5♣) is too small to worry about.

[Cyberyeti]

But the idea is that the delayed 3♣ bid (or 2♣ if you prefer) is not a preempt - it is a constructive bid. The upshot is that direct action denies constructive values. Most hands that want to interfere don't have constructive values anyway, and it gives partner some freedom that they know they can mess around after our interference as they want - pass a conventional notrump overcall, raise on random hands, psyche etc.

 

Of course it becomes a bit less safe for partner to interfere after we pass, but I don't think that's a major issue.

 

It would be nice to be able to bid 3♣ or 4♣ with this hand, but the question is if the hand is too strong. Partner won't take any action with Axxx-Axxx-xx-Qxx. But maybe that's a price worth paying. We may not be able to find 3NT anyway, and maybe the chance that we can make 3NT (or 5♣) is too small to worry about.

 

We actually play 1M natural and constructive over a strong club, any other decent hands have to pass first. If partner has a complete bust we may have missed our last chance to preempt, but most likely it will go 1♣-1♦-1M/N and we can act sensibly. Meanwhile we can bid on tram tickets at this vulnerability.

[akwoo]

With this hand, an immediate double showing clubs and constructive values is fine if that's how you play it (and I do play it that way in a few partnerships).

 

I'm also happy to preempt - the times when you miss a game opposite a strong club is vanishingly small.

[LBengtsson]

with so many cards missing from the major suits, and knowing that even if partner has a few of the opponents trumps (should they end in a major suit) they are under declarer and subject to finesses, it's either 3♣ or 4♣ for me. 3♣ probably makes it too easy for the opponents to bid again, and partner is not likely to raise ♣s. so at this vulnerability I bid 4♣.

[mycroft]

Yeah, the concern about this hand is that we might make 3NT (having said that, even if we do, they likely make 4M, and it's a good sacrifice if they can't).

 

With ♣AQTxxxx and the ♦K, I'd think about 4♣ - because I'm not concerned about missing 3NT.

 

Of course, pass-and-come-in helps the strong club bidders. But not necessarily enough to overcome "what to do when they get to 4M" telling the difference between "I have a couple tricks" and "they're making this, sacrifice if it's right" (and "they're making *six*, don't push 'em there!")

[Gilithin]

opponents (N-S) play precision. we play Sayc. After S bid of 1 ♣ what should W bid?

Strong Club defences vary greatly but here are 5 possible approaches:

 

1. The simple: overcall 4♣ - bid the limit of the hand and leave the rest to partner

2. The cautious: overcall 3♣ - show your suit and see how things develop

3. The optimistic: Pass - treat the hand as constructive in case partner has the rest of the points or Opener is semi-psyching.

4. The nebulous: Double - this is fine if you have a firm agreement with partner that it shows this type of hand but not so good if partner thinks it means something else (and the SAYC booklet is unclear)

5. The gambling: psyche a 1M overcall - retreat to ♣ as required (it helps to have an understanding partner)