[cherdano]

If you had discussed that 3♥ is a splinter, I would bid that (even though it is a mild overbid).
Otherwise, 3♣ as invitational possible (a mild underbid). If you start with 1♦, you should jump to 3♣ or 4♣ next. Your 2♣ bid was just a weak preference, what you would bid with a 2254 shape and 6 hcp.

[jillybean]

Yep, North obviously underbid this. I was interested in how the auction should have gone

1♣:3♣
3♦:3♥
?

1♣:1♦
1♥:3♣
?

[mike777]

I think this is a tough hand. Many play 1c=3h as undiscussed or weak with 7 hearts and not a splinter, so tough.

I guess I would start with a game force bid.
1c=2d(crisscross game force)
2h=3d
?

Playing MP one hates to give up on 3nt or should one try for slam? tough hand.
A bit easier at IMP as one can just try for slam and sign off in 5clubs.

[jillybean]

mike777, on Jun 30 2007, 08:47 AM, said:

I guess I would start with a game force bid.

I'm not sure North is worth a gf bid here. We don't know if we have a fit and the ♦'s are patchy. I think I'd settle for a limit raise, especially knowing how light 1♣ could be.

[mike777]

jillybean2, on Jun 30 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 30 2007, 08:47 AM, said:

I guess I would start with a game force bid.

I'm not sure North is worth a gf bid here. We don't know if we have a fit and the ♦'s are patchy. I think I'd settle for a limit raise, especially knowing how light 1♣ could be.

I think I got enough total support points to force to game and not just invite even across from my light openers. At imps I prefer to force to game. Yes we might go down or even find an underpoint slam.

btw we have a fit partner promises 3+ clubs I assume.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean2, on Jun 30 2007, 02:51 AM, said:

Dealer: South Vul: EW Scoring: IMP

♠ 53 ♥ 5 ♦ KJ543 ♣ AQJ65 ♠ Q74 ♥ A973 ♦ A ♣ K7432

West  North East  South

-    -    -    1♣
Pass  1♦    Pass  1♥
Pass  2♣    Pass  Pass
Pass 


This made 7♣ on a ♣ lead..I had not discussed forcing minor raises with this partner.  How would you have bid it?  1♣:3♣

1C (1) - 1D (2)
1H (3) - 3C (4)
3NT(5)


(1) standard, playing a SA like system
(2) bidding diamonds will give you time to learn
more about openers hand
(3) mayors rule, in case responders always bids
the mayor being 4-4 (diamonds and a mayor),
1H would show an unbal. hand and at least 4-4
(4) you may or may not force to game with Norths
hand, but the heart shortage is certainly not an
improvement, additionnally North may not know
yet about the 5-4 fit, see 3
(5) In theory I may ask for a spade stopper with 3S,
but in real life I would bid 3NT

[jillybean]

mike777, on Jun 30 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

btw we have a fit partner promises 3+ clubs I assume.

Correct

[jillybean]

I was south here, I hope sitting north I wouldn't bid 1♦, 2♣ but I am not confident enough to make an immediate game force.
4sf yes.

if the auction was

1♣:1♦
2♣/1nt: do you still force game?

[jillybean]

mike777, on Jun 30 2007, 08:47 AM, said:

I think this is a tough hand. Many play 1c=3h as undiscussed or weak with 7 hearts and not a splinter, so tough.

If I wanted to make a splinter showing ♣ support I would have bid 1♣:4♥ here.

[neilkaz]

Jlall, on Jun 30 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

Not forcing to game with the north hand is crazy imo and a serious evaluation error. If you play fourth suit forcing you can try that after 1C-1D-1H.

We agree !

[skjaeran]

Jlall, on Jul 1 2007, 01:12 AM, said:

Not forcing to game with the north hand is crazy imo and a serious evaluation error. If you play fourth suit forcing you can try that after 1C-1D-1H.

In the B/I forum I agree.
(I'd not GF with my regular partner with this hand, since 1♣ could be a balanced 11-count with a doubleton ♣.)

[jillybean]

delete

[P_Marlowe]

Jlall, on Jun 30 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

Not forcing to game with the north hand is crazy imo and a serious evaluation error. If you play fourth suit forcing you can try that after 1C-1D-1H.

Hi,

the reason, I would only reluctantly force to game with
the North is, that 5C or 5D is a long way to go, and if we
have the the strength to make 5C / 5D, partner will make
another move over 3C, but I am willing to listen and to learn.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

1♣ (p)

---

IMO, I do not think forcing to game after partner opens 1♣ is at all obvious and suggesting you do so opposite a BI is simply arrogant. 1♦ is a fine bid.

[awm]

jillybean2, on Jul 1 2007, 10:32 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♣ (p)

---

IMO, I do not think forcing to game after partner opens 1♣ is at all obvious and suggesting you do so opposite a BI is simply arrogant. 1♦ is a fine bid.

A lot of folks seem to have trouble evaluating minor-suit oriented hands. If we change this hand to:

AQJxx
x
KJxxx
xx

and have partner open 1♠, even a beginner can see that this is worth a game force. Even if I were to suggest that this hand is really too good for a direct 4♠ bid, because slam is too likely to make with an opening hand opposite an opening hand and a ten-card fit, a lot of B/I level players would understand that idea.

It's curious that just reversing the black suits (and swapping the black suit partner opens) suddenly creates so much trouble. We still have an opening hand opposite an opening hand. Our hand still evaluates to 6 losers opposite a probable 7 for a minimum opening. We still have a big trump fit (although here it's likely to be 9 cards since partner will typically have 4♣ for the opening).

It's true that 5♣ is one trick more than 4♠, but it's also true that the hand above was really "too good" for a simple signoff in 4♠. Of course game will not always make -- you can construct nightmare hands for partner -- but it will often make.

[P_Marlowe]

awm, on Jul 1 2007, 12:05 PM, said:

<snip>
A lot of folks seem to have trouble evaluating minor-suit oriented hands. If we change this hand to:

AQJxx
x
KJxxx
xx

and have partner open 1♠, even a beginner can see that this is worth a game force.
<snip>

It's true that 5♣ is one trick more than 4♠, but it's also true that the hand above was really "too good" for a simple signoff in 4♠. Of course game will not always make -- you can construct nightmare hands for partner -- but it will often make.

Just one simple remark:

After a 1S opener you know you have a 5-5 fit,
after a 1C opener you have a sure 5-3 fit, ...
I agree just a minor difference, and not really
relevant.

Sry, but going after a eleven trick game with a possible
5-3 fit is a different thing than going after a 10 trick
game with a 5-5 fit, ... and yes I know, usually we
will have a 5-4 fit in clubs.

I dont mind forcing to game with the given North hand,
I have been down before, but I would say it is close.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[awm]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 1 2007, 12:16 PM, said:

After a 1S opener you know you have a 5-5 fit,
after a 1C opener you have a sure 5-3 fit, ...
I agree just a minor difference, and not really
relevant.

This is part of the issue I think. A lot of people tend to fixate on the possibility that opener has a three-card club suit, when in fact it is almost always four. In fact I see a lot of beginners who don't even make a serious invite on a hand like this, preferring to bid only 2♣ or even 1♦ followed by a 2♣ correction, because "we might only have eight clubs, I don't want to go to the three-level without a nine-card fit."

[skjaeran]

jillybean2, on Jul 1 2007, 05:32 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♣ (p)

---

IMO, I do not think forcing to game after partner opens 1♣ is at all obvious and suggesting you do so opposite a BI is simply arrogant. 1♦ is a fine bid.

The reason I'd GF vs a BI is that then I would be playing a very plain and simple system, where we would be sure to have a fit. Besides, I'd assume that BI would be playing fairly sound openings , a good 12 and upwards.

Btw, I'd be expecting to be dummy anyway, so it's not an attempt to "hog" the hand - a tactic I don't like at all, whatever kind of partner or tournament I'm playing.

Whatever faults there might be to my character, arrogance is not among them.

[neilkaz]

awm, on Jul 1 2007, 12:29 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Jul 1 2007, 12:16 PM, said:

After a 1S opener you know you have a 5-5 fit,
after a 1C opener you have a sure 5-3 fit, ...
I agree just a minor difference, and not really
relevant.

This is part of the issue I think. A lot of people tend to fixate on the possibility that opener has a three-card club suit, when in fact it is almost always four. In fact I see a lot of beginners who don't even make a serious invite on a hand like this, preferring to bid only 2♣ or even 1♦ followed by a 2♣ correction, because "we might only have eight clubs, I don't want to go to the three-level without a nine-card fit."

A main point is that the responing hand has 11 HCP in it's 5-5 suits. This hand has lots of potential vs a 1♣ opening !

Could it be that 5♣ is -1 ? Or that 3NT is set ? Surely, but I'd take that risk.

At the very least responder can jump to 3♣ rather than the pathetic 2♣ preference, as 3♣ should be a decent game invite.

.. neilkaz ..