[inquiry]

I started bo put impossible since you have no agreement, so it risk misunderstanding, but I decided not too. Assume your partner is an expert and that he has a reasonable expectation that you are not bad yourself and you will get this bid right.

[pbleighton]

Preemptive bid, weak hands, bunches of clubs.

Peter

[bid_em_up]

inquiry, on May 3 2007, 05:22 PM, said:

Assume your partner is an expert and that he has a reasonable expectation that you are not bad yourself and you will get this bid right.

Then it should be exclusion.

[mike777]

pbleighton, on May 3 2007, 05:41 PM, said:

Preemptive bid, weak hands, bunches of clubs.

Peter

ditto.

[hrothgar]

Exclusion

[pclayton]

Ben, I think the title of the poll is a little misleading. What does playing Jacoby 2N have to do with it? When I first read the title, I thought the jump to 5♣ was in a jacoby auction, not directly over 5♣.

If its a direct jump, then hand is just a slew of clubs.

[inquiry]

pclayton, on May 3 2007, 05:47 PM, said:

Ben, I think the title of the poll is a little misleading. What does playing Jacoby 2N have to do with it? When I first read the title, I thought the jump to 5♣ was in a jacoby auction, not directly over 5♣.

If its a direct jump, then hand is just a slew of clubs.

Well the actual partnership agreement was "2/1, jacoby 2NT, udca"... so that was the limit of your agreement.

[sathyab]

If you start with a 4c splinter and bid 5c over partner's rebid it'd be exclusion as you would not normally be cue-bidding above game level. If pd trots out 4nt you're happy to show your void, as partner is prepared for it.

So 5c should be natural.

[jdonn]

If a bid with no agreement can be natural, it is natural, period. Anyone who thinks 5♣ is not something with a ton of clubs is, with all due respect, friggin insane.

I want to note the partnership didn't even agree to play exclusion blackwood period! Let alone as a player's first bid and without agreeing a suit first.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on May 3 2007, 05:27 PM, said:

If a bid with no agreement can be natural, it is natural, period. Anyone who thinks 5♣ is not something with a ton of clubs is, with all due respect, friggin insane.

I want to note the partnership didn't even agree to play exclusion blackwood period! Let alone as a player's first bid and without agreeing a suit first.

Maybe it is preemptive, but your reasoning is ridiculous. 1S-4C is also possibly natural, and I am sure this partnership has not agreed to play splinters. And still noone would take it as natural.

[jdonn]

cherdano, on May 3 2007, 07:51 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 3 2007, 05:27 PM, said:

If a bid with no agreement can be natural, it is natural, period. Anyone who thinks 5♣ is not something with a ton of clubs is, with all due respect, friggin insane.

I want to note the partnership didn't even agree to play exclusion blackwood period! Let alone as a player's first bid and without agreeing a suit first.

Maybe it is preemptive, but your reasoning is ridiculous. 1S-4C is also possibly natural, and I am sure this partnership has not agreed to play splinters. And still noone would take it as natural.

It is your completely literal interpretation when you know exactly what I meant that is ridiculous. Do you think I was also claiming 1NT p 2♣ is natural because they didn't agree stayman?

If you want to be ridiculous and pick apart what people say, I could easily point this out

cherdano, on May 3 2007, 07:51 PM, said:

1S-4C is also possibly natural

cherdano, on May 3 2007, 07:51 PM, said:

  noone would take it as natural.

How could something no one would take as natural possibly be natural? Or did you think my argument pertained to the laws of psychics, in which case you got me. Allow me to clarify so that doesn't happen again. By "can be natural" I mean "a non-negligible amount of players in the class of that given in the problem would interpret this bid as natural." I'm sure you will find a way that is technically wrong as well.

[Gerben42]

I wanted to vote Super-Gerben

It's preemptive. Exclusion has to go through 2NT.

[gwnn]

Has to be natural. A hand that would have opened 5♣ (the lower end of the scale).

[FrancesHinden]

Jlall, on May 4 2007, 01:53 AM, said:

cherdano, on May 3 2007, 07:51 PM, said:

Maybe it is preemptive, but your reasoning is ridiculous. 1S-4C is also possibly natural, and I am sure this partnership has not agreed to play splinters. And still noone would take it as natural.

1S-4C is not a jump to game. It is also so widely played as a splinter that it cannot be misconstrued as natural. I WOULD take 1S-4H as natural if bid undiscussed.

Blindingly obviously natural, weakish hand, loads and loads of clubs, not inviting me to raise unless I have a very special (control-rich) hand.

I wouldn't try 1S - 4H undiscussed.
This one is so obviously to play that I would.

[Fluffy]

One question for all like me who would take it as natural: would you alert the call if you had 5 clubs?

I bid 1♠-4♥ as a passed hand once, and partner didn't alert the bid. He had ♥AQJ109x himself. Director adjusted the score after a horrible lead (but in Spain you don't expect much from directors).

[whereagles]

When pard bids something not agreed, it should be taken as natural. But I'd first look at my hand to check whether that's likely. E.g. if I have, say,

Kxxxx
Ax
x
AQJxx

it can hardly be natural, right? In that case I'd take it as some sort of voidwood, I guess.

[P_Marlowe]

Exclusion.

If you say, Exclusion goes via 2NT - fair enough,
but then weak with long clubs can also go through
1NT (forcing).

Whatever it is, if I get it wrong (sometimes my hand
tells me), it is partners fault.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mike777]

Exclusion sure seems to come up alot more on the Forum hands than I ever noticed in decades of reading bridge magazines and books. .