[CSGibson]

---

Playing cross-imps on BBO. I know that pass would likely win the most votes, but I am more interested in what people's choices are if they were to take a call other than pass, so I would like you to consider the merits of choices other than pass if possible - I saw arguments for X (take-out, but with convertable values), 4N, and 5♣ at the table.

There will also be follow-up questions.

[wyman]

I can't imagine X with a stiff spade, and I think 4N > 5C.

[Hanoi5]

I think 5♣>4NT

[blackshoe]

I think 5♣>4NT>>>X, but I think as between the first two it's very close. With a fifth diamond, I'd go with 4NT.

[Lord Molyb]

5♣
basically what blackshoe said

[CSGibson]

Just to further this, at the table I saw the following pros and cons of each choice:

X: Pro - 4♥X could be the right contract, partner is liable to leave it in with a flat hand; I may be able to survive a 4♠ call by correcting to 5♣.
Con - I really don't want partner to bid spades, and if partner does bid spades, she might not be content with just a 4♠ call. Even if partner does bid 4♠, I think double and pull to clubs shows a stronger hand.

4N: Pro - Highlights the minors, most likely to get us to our best playable minor.
Con - Gives lefty the same information as partner, he's more likely to do the right thing when choosing to play or defend, or even double. My suits are also not near equal quality, even if there is only a 1 card disparity in length.

5♣: Pro - its the primary feature of my hand, and my concentration of values. It hides the diamond suit from lefty/opponents, which may have value in bidding and play. It will be harder to double because lefty won't have more than a J behind me in my suit, and won't know about my other suit lengths.
Con - the least flexible call - partner will expect a different hand type, with more clubs. If we do belong in diamonds, we will almost never find them after 5♣.

And, for fun, the Pass/bid debate in my head:
Pass: Pro - no call describes my hand well, and all calls have a lot of risk since we are vulnerable
Con - Pass doesn't describe my hand well, either. If partner balances, I will still have no idea what to do. Bidding puts some pressure on opps, and relieves some pressure from partner; opps might very well get this wrong in a competitive auction.

Anyway, as I said, I see pros and cons for each. Feel free to call BS on any of my freely given thoughts, or add your own pros/cons for a favorite auction. I still don't know what I prefer.

[Fluffy]

4NT>5♣ since partner normally picks clubs with 2-2 or 3-3

[Hanoi5]

Fluffy, on 2013-October-04, 13:29, said:

4NT>5♣ since partner normally picks clubs with 2-2 or 3-3

Really? Is partner more likely to bid clubs with 9xx instead of diamonds with AQx? Most people prefer to bid their best suit when given a choice between two of the same length...

[wyman]

Hanoi5, on 2013-October-04, 13:36, said:

Really? Is partner more likely to bid clubs with 9xx instead of diamonds with AQx? Most people prefer to bid their best suit when given a choice between two of the same length...

Yes, lol partner will obviously bid clubs with ♣9xx ♦AQx. I don't know who "most people" are, but hopefully we're not partnering them.

[ArtK78]

wyman, on 2013-October-04, 13:41, said:

Yes, lol partner will obviously bid clubs with ♣9xx ♦AQx. I don't know who "most people" are, but hopefully we're not partnering them.

I don't know why you are making this assertion. If I held ♦AQ9 and ♣9xx, I would bid 5♦.

The choice here is between the minors. If the opening bid were 4♠ and partner overcalled 4NT, showing two places to play, I can understand bidding 5♣ with equal length in the two minor suits if I prefer to play in partner's minor suit rather than hearts, to cater to partner having hearts and clubs. But that is not the case here.

For example, if partner bid 4NT over 4♠ and I held xxx xx AQxx xxxx, I would bid 5♣.

Perhaps others will join in the discussion to point out why on the auction (4♥) - 4NT - (P) I should choose clubs with equal length in the two suits even when my diamonds are much stronger.

[wyman]

ArtK78, on 2013-October-04, 14:13, said:

I don't know why you are making this assertion. If I held ♦AQ9 and ♣9xx, I would bid 5♦.

The choice here is between the minors. If the opening bid were 4♠ and partner overcalled 4NT, showing two places to play, I can understand bidding 5♣ with equal length in the two minor suits if I prefer to play in partner's minor suit rather than hearts, to cater to partner having hearts and clubs. But that is not the case here.

Perhaps others will join in the discussion to point out why I should choose clubs with equal length in the two suits.

This is totally bizarre to me, but if I'm wrong and it's standard to bid 5D with this holding, I'll be pretty embarrassed.

As for why, there's a number of reasons. We have no reason to assume that D will play better than C, so keeping it low allows for us to run if we get sawed off in clubs, for example. Bidding 5C also allows more space; 4N-er can bid 5D now with whatever hand you've agreed upon, e.g., a slam try in diamonds. I just don't see the advantage of bidding diamonds over clubs here. Surely our club losers are club losers in both spots. The 4N hand can't have a suit to pitch away your small clubs. And it's unlikely (though I guess remotely possible) for you to have enough spades to pitch away all of 4N-er's losing clubs. Am I missing a convincing argument here?

edit: maybe it's an inconsistent position to claim we can run from 5Cx and that losers in clubs probably aren't going away. But to me, keeping it low is all about leaving us options (that can depend on all sorts of things - who's on lead, what our major holdings are, etc), especially with no reason to believe that diamonds will play better in any case. But like I said, I'm prepared to eat crow if I'm wrong.

edit2: To be clear, I take the same approach with Michaels / Unus2N and other known 2-suited calls. I bid the cheaper with equal lengths.

[Hanoi5]

wyman, on 2013-October-04, 14:23, said:

This is totally bizarre to me, but if I'm wrong and it's standard to bid 5D with this holding, I'll be pretty embarrassed.

As for why, there's a number of reasons. We have no reason to assume that D will play better than C, so keeping it low allows for us to run if we get sawed off in clubs, for example. Bidding 5C also allows more space; 4N-er can bid 5D now with whatever hand you've agreed upon, e.g., a slam try in diamonds. I just don't see the advantage of bidding diamonds over clubs here. Surely our club losers are club losers in both spots. The 4N hand can't have a suit to pitch away your small clubs. And it's unlikely (though I guess remotely possible) for you to have enough spades to pitch away all of 4N-er's losing clubs. Am I missing a convincing argument here?

edit: maybe it's an inconsistent position to claim we can run from 5Cx and that losers in clubs probably aren't going away. But to me, keeping it low is all about leaving us options (that can depend on all sorts of things - who's on lead, what our major holdings are, etc), especially with no reason to believe that diamonds will play better in any case. But like I said, I'm prepared to eat crow if I'm wrong.

edit2: To be clear, I take the same approach with Michaels / Unus2N and other known 2-suited calls. I bid the cheaper with equal lengths.

A couple of years ago I ran a topic asking posters what they'd bid with three cards in each of partner's suits, one of them headed by an honour, the other headed by small cards. I was very surprised most chose to bid the best looking suit which I thought (and still think a little) was not 'correct'. I see your reason is to leave space for partner's future bidding but I think it's more important to envision the play.

[akhare]

One might argue that it's better to come in now with 5♣ / 4N rather than guess over pard's presumed 4♠ in the balancing seat.

IMO, it's a close call between 4N / 5♣...

[Winstonm]

5C - awful call but what else?

[gszes]

ok im down 11 imps last board so I need a swing---I have to overcome eons of conditioning
in order to do something other than pass since it looks highly unlikely there are any scenarios
where pass will manage to net 11 + IMPS.

x completely unreasonable since there is never going to be any way I will trust a 4s bid from
partner.

5c least likely to get X but who cares about that?? If I cant pick up 11+ imps going down a
ton will not matter a whit. The problem is what if a club stack passes (content to set me down
4 vul not doubled if we are crazy enough to play it there)??

4n this gives us 2 chance to find a fit and it also gives us by far our best chance at picking up
those precious 11 imps. lho will not be able to sit for a doomed 5c when 5 6 or even 7d is
possible and very unlikely to be bid after 5c. Giving lho information is of small consequence
under these trying conditions and we are probably down by (only 11 imps) because we
continue to bid with hands like these so our poor beleaguered partner never knows when we
really have stuff or just have a psychotic dislike of the pass card:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

4n=4 5c=2 x=1

[ArtK78]

gszes, on 2013-October-05, 18:50, said:

ok im down 11 imps last board so I need a swing---I have to overcome eons of conditioning
in order to do something other than pass since it looks highly unlikely there are any scenarios
where pass will manage to net 11 + IMPS......

If this is the scenario, then the call is clear.

6♦

[nige1]

CSGibson, on 2013-October-04, 11:09, said:

Playing cross-imps on BBO. I know that pass would likely win the most votes, but I am more interested in what people's choices are if they were to take a call other than pass, so I would like you to consider the merits of choices other than pass if possible - I saw arguments for X (take-out, but with convertable values), 4N, and 5♣ at the table.

---

There will also be follow-up questions.

IMO 5♣ = 10, 4N = 9, Double = 8.
If it just shows a "flexible" hand, then double, followed by 5♣ over 4♠ might be OK. As Fluffy says partner is likely to bid ♣ with equal length in the minors. Also 4N has a slight inference that ♣ are better but a downside is that it may get us to a silly contract opposite say
♠ KQxxxxx ♥ x ♦Axx ♣ Jx

[gszes]

ArtK78, on 2013-October-07, 09:31, said:

If this is the scenario, then the call is clear.

6♦

))))))))))))))) I was just trying to make a point of emphasis on just how difficult it would
be for me to do something other than pass-------------------State of the Match happens to
be one of those that lets me overcome my psychotic dislike of humongous negative scores:)

[DJNeill]

4N. It's close I think, since 5C will get doubled less frequently in general than a 4N choice and 5D preference, but I think the odds are with giving partner the choice if I have just 4D-5C.