[Halo]

Natural. I don't this bid is commonly enough accepted as artificial for my expert partner to take such a risk without agreement.

[inquiry]

I have to admit I am a little surprised by the number of people thinking this was exclusion if undiscussed. My general rule is blackwood (even exlusion) in a hitherto unsupported suit is never a possible interpretation for a bid if a forcing raise was available.

I held something like

JTxxxx
Qx
KJ
AJx

Yes, I know, maybe not even an opening bid. Partner bid 5C, I passed. Yes he had a club void and huge spade fi--six spades makes (lose heart Ace), down five.

[SoTired]

I voted exclusion only because I thought all the answers other than weak hand with oodles of clubs were a joke.

I just thot of this new rule for crazy auctions like this: If you want to do something weird, is there a non-weird way of doing it?

void splinter? 4C is still sprinter. void is bonus.
ERKC? You did not even discuss ERKC, but you might start that with 4C or 2N
Fit Jump? Who fit jumps to the 5-level?
Super Gerber? Give me a break. 4N is regular blackwood, so you don't need Super Gerber

My story: I was dealt 8 hearts to the J and out. My partner opened a natural 1C and the next player passed. I jumped to 4H. Pard thought and thought and finally bid 6H, which was doubled and down 2. Partner had a balanced 18/19 HCP with ♥Kx. If I had wanted to involve pard in the auction, I would start with 1H. 4H was obviously a hand that did not want to bid any slam with any 1C opener. 6H was a bid that assumed I did not know what I was doing.

[skjaeran]

Non-discussed: Natural preemp
Discussed: Ditto

Exclusion is bid via 2NT (or some other forcing raise).

[skjaeran]

This topic reminds me of a funny story.

Hans-Olof Hallén (swedish int. TD) played in a pairs tournament a long time ago with a new partner. They had agreed on methods to some extent, but some areas were uncovered. Then this novel sequence came up: 1♠ (Hallén) - 4♥ (new partner). Of course that wasn't discussed. Halleén didn't have a clue from their agreements. So, looking down at his own void, he decided partner probably had some hearts, and passed. Playing in the 0-0 fit didn't do them any good - except for a hilarious story.

[jdonn]

You certainly don't alert even with long clubs. A few weeks ago on vugraph, in some match between Chinese teams, I saw a player overcall 1NT over 1♠ with Ax of spades and AKQxxx of clubs, and his partner immediately jumped to 5♣ holding the other 7.

As I told Justin yesterday, when I see the 14 and growing vote total for for exclusion, I begin to understand why every board on BBO seems to have a contract down 8 in both directions.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on May 4 2007, 08:31 AM, said:

You certainly don't alert even with long clubs. A few weeks ago on vugraph, in some match between Chinese teams, I saw a player overcall 1NT over 1♠ with Ax of spades and AKQxxx of clubs, and his partner immediately jumped to 5♣ holding the other 7.

As I told Justin yesterday, when I see the 14 and growing vote total for for exclusion, I begin to understand why every board on BBO seems to have a contract down 8 in both directions.

Two of our favorite players on BBO had this auction last week:

1♥ - 1N
2♣ - 2♠
2N - 4♠

tank...

tank...

tank...

Pass....

The 4♠ bidder held: void: xx, xxxx, AKxxxxx I think.

At T1 he claimed down 10 (he was only down 8).

[inquiry]

pclayton, on May 4 2007, 11:44 AM, said:

Two of our favorite players on BBO had this auction last week:

1♥ - 1N
2♣ - 2♠
2N - 4♠

The 4♠ bidder held: void: xx, xxxx, AKxxxxx I think.

At T1 he claimed down 10 (he was only down 8).

I side, sortof, with the 4♠ bidder. 2♠ had to be impossible 2♠ showing strong club support. What I don't understand is why not 4♠ over 2[sl] or 3♠ over 2♣. But still, responder clearly unambigiously can not have spades.

[pclayton]

inquiry, on May 4 2007, 08:57 AM, said:

pclayton, on May 4 2007, 11:44 AM, said:

Two of our favorite players on BBO had this auction last week:

1♥ - 1N
2♣ - 2♠
2N - 4♠

The 4♠ bidder held: void: xx, xxxx, AKxxxxx I think.

At T1 he claimed down 10 (he was only down 8).

I side, sortof, with the 4♠ bidder. 2♠ had to be impossible 2♠ showing strong club support. What I don't understand is why not 4♠ over 2[sl] or 3♠ over 2♣. But still, responder clearly unambigiously can not have spades.

A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away, 2♠ was described as a 'bar' bid, meaning I have a massive string of spades (QJ-7th and out) and you are "barred' from bidding. These were in the strong jump shift days. I guess a 2♠ rebid after 1N by opener was constructive too.

4♠ either says I am upgrading since you have extras and tolerance, or you are an idiot and didn't understand my 2♠ so I am punishing you.

Some sequences are 100% clear, and some are pretty murky. This one is fairly clear, but there is a small element of doubt, at least with a player who may not be up to speed on 21st century bidding.

I would side with the 4♠ bidder too. As a matter of fact I was given opener's hand and asked what to bid over 4♠ holding a very non-descript 3=5=2=3 i13 count. I bid 5♣, but commented that 4♠ is something of a torture bid.

I also think 3♠ is a more descriptive call directly over 2♣, instead of the 2♠ / 4♠ sequence.

[skjaeran]

inquiry, on May 4 2007, 06:57 PM, said:

pclayton, on May 4 2007, 11:44 AM, said:

Two of our favorite players on BBO had this auction last week:

1♥ - 1N
2♣ - 2♠
2N - 4♠

The 4♠ bidder held: void: xx, xxxx, AKxxxxx I think.

At T1 he claimed down 10 (he was only down 8).

I side, sortof, with the 4♠ bidder. 2♠ had to be impossible 2♠ showing strong club support. What I don't understand is why not 4♠ over 2[sl] or 3♠ over 2♣. But still, responder clearly unambigiously can not have spades.

Agree - even for a moment thinking it's remotely possible for partner to have ♠'s here is weird....

[whereagles]

inquiry, on May 4 2007, 02:52 PM, said:

I have to admit I am a little surprised by the number of people thinking this was exclusion if undiscussed. My general rule is blackwood (even exlusion) in a hitherto unsupported suit is never a possible interpretation for a bid if a forcing raise was available.

I held something like

JTxxxx
Qx
KJ
AJx

Yes, I know, maybe not even an opening bid. Partner bid 5C, I passed. Yes he had a club void and huge spade fi--six spades makes (lose heart Ace), down five.

1. Not even an opener? In Roth-Stone, I guess

2. Not sure whether I'd take an undiscussed 5♣ as natural with this hand.

3. Pard bid carelessly. Sack him

[bid_em_up]

Gerben42, on May 4 2007, 02:24 AM, said:

I wanted to vote Super-Gerben

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

Says who? Exclusion does not have to be for support with openers suit.

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on May 4 2007, 02:27 AM, 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.

Here's one issue that you might want to factor in to your calculations:

What's the relative frequency of a natural 5♣ compared to an exclusion keycard response to a 1♠ opening. I've been playing bridge for a very long time. I can't recall a single occasion when I've ever held a hand where I wanted to bid 5♣ natural/non-forcing over partner's 1♠ opening.

Lets assume that 2/3rds of the players out there believe that an undiscussed 5♣ response should be NNF. Only 1/3rd believe that this should be exclusion keycard (I readily admit that I am pulling numbers out of my ass).

If the relative frequency of the two bids is skewed sufficiently than treating 5♣ as if it were exclusion is still the practical choice.

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on May 4 2007, 12:46 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 4 2007, 02:27 AM, 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.

Here's one issue that you might want to factor in to your calculations:

What's the relative frequency of a natural 5♣ compared to an exclusion keycard response to a 1♠ opening. I've been playing bridge for a very long time. I can't recall a single occasion when I've ever held a hand where I wanted to bid 5♣ natural/non-forcing over partner's 1♠ opening.

Lets assume that 2/3rds of the players out there believe that an undiscussed 5♣ response should be NNF. Only 1/3rd believe that this should be exclusion keycard (I readily admit that I am pulling numbers out of my ass).

If the relative frequency of the two bids is skewed sufficiently than treating 5♣ as if it were exclusion is still the practical choice.

I don't think 'frequency' makes much sense here. You can comfortably have an exclusion sequence after any forcing raise.

I have held a hand like: x, x, Qx, KJT9xxxxx and wanted to bid 5♣. Why is this any different from wanting to bid 4 of a major over 1 of a minor with the same hand, but an 8 bagger? Its preemptive, and its descriptive.

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on May 4 2007, 08:46 PM, said:

I've been playing bridge for a very long time. I can't recall a single occasion when I've ever held a hand where I wanted to bid 5♣ natural/non-forcing over partner's 1♠ opening.

Never happened to me, but it did happen to my pard once

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on May 4 2007, 03:46 PM, said:

Here's one issue that you might want to factor in to your calculations:

What's the relative frequency of a natural 5♣ compared to an exclusion keycard response to a 1♠ opening.  I've been playing bridge for a very long time.  I can't recall a single occasion when I've ever held a hand where I wanted to bid 5♣ natural/non-forcing over partner's 1♠ opening.

Your memory is selective, or your hands are coincidentally not representative. I'm sure you have over the years held plenty of hands you wanted to open 5 of a minor. Your partner has never opened the bidding first?

Also to clarify, just because you hold a good hand with support and a void does not make immediate exclusion the best option even if it were available, it probably is only the best choice on some minority of such hands. If you think back to 'exclusion hands' when trying to decide the relative frequency of the bids (this is not the main issue anyway, see Phil's post above), are you recalling hands where an immediate exclusion bid if available is truly the best choice, or are you merely recalling just good hands with support and a void?

I really think almost any experienced bridge player who says he has 'never' held some particular hand is probably just wrong. I know you aren't making a definitive statement, just saying what you remember. But consider this. I have been playing bridge 13 years (granted, more hands than almost anyone during half that time) and have held at least 4 hands that were 7-6, 8-5, or 10-3 (never 9-4 I think), as well as having kibitzed 3 and I think I'm forgetting some as well. Yet when I ask almost any player, they claim never to have held two voids. Am I really so lucky? Watch me play poker sometime and you will have to agree I'm not.

[han]

I certainly expect 5C to be natural.

I also think that opening 1S is perfectly normal Ben.

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on May 5 2007, 12:46 AM, said:

Your memory is selective, or your hands are coincidentally not representative. I'm sure you have over the years held plenty of hands you wanted to open 5 of a minor. Your partner has never opened the bidding first?

Silly question:

Lets assume that you decide that a 5m response to a 1M opening should be Natural, Non Forcing. Its far from clear to me that the requirements for this response should be identical to those required for a 5m preempt. (I'd go so far as to say that I am very skeptical that every hand that qualifies for a 5m preempt should make a 5m response to a 1M opening)

Part of the reason that I find this interesting is that I open at the 5 level more often than most. However, I'm having a great deal of trouble constructing hands where I'm sure that I'd want to respond 5m...

[Codo]

I read many opinions, but few reasons why you should use 5 Club as Voidwood or as natural. So I try to find some:

Natural is good because:
- your lho with a strong two suiter or an one suiter which is not strong/long enough to be bid at the 5. level must stay quiet.
- you can bid this very special hand (9+ Clubs, weak hand) in one bid.
-If pd has a more or less normal opening bid they may have the last guess.
-you do not need Voidwoo,d you can use 2 NT for all strong hands.

Exclusive is good because:
- LHo may bid over your 2 NT bid but may not be able to bid over 5 Club.
-you can bid this very special hand (When you just need to know the KCs outside of clubs) in one bid.
-You don´t have to mess around with possible jacoby disasters like:
1 ♠ 2 NT 4 ♣ 5 ♣?? or 1 ♠ 2 NT 4♥ 5 ♣? or 1 ♠ 2 NT 3 ♦ ??
even 1 ♠ 2 NT 4 ♠ 5 ♣ is not cristal clear.
- You won`t play 5 ♣ -2 while 3 ♣ is the limit.

Did I miss anything?

Make your own choice what you prefer, I take voidwood.
But outside of the forum this is no real problem. It simply has a too low frequency to care about it.