[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2016-March-13, 14:01, said:

Nah, you exagerate.

Agreed.

helene_t, on 2016-March-13, 14:01, said:

5♣ is a strange bid but if the bid exists at all, maybe it shows something like this? Solid clubs and nothing else.

But here I disagree. I think 5♣ should show something like ♣QJTxxxxx and out. The solid club hand can start with 4♣.

[Lovera]

helene_t, on 2016-March-13, 14:01, said:

Nah, you exagerate.

2♣ is a bit exentric but it is a style thing. 5♣ is a strange bid but if the bid exists at all, maybe it shows something like this? Solid clubs and nothing else. Not an unreasonable definition, although I would rather expect the same hand without ♣A.

This is what i was thinking at table :a suit not completely selfsupporting.

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-13, 16:16, said:

Agreed.


But here I disagree. I think 5♣ should show something like ♣QJTxxxxx and out. The solid club hand can start with 4♣.

Why on god's green earth would I ever want to show that hand at the 5 level?

Sure, lets bye pass 3N and 4 of a major to show a trump suit with two guaranteed losers and make sure that we can't explore for a fit!

[wank]

eagles123, on 2016-March-13, 16:07, said:

really with the exact same hand and a major queen are we really opening 2c - would never occur to me?

xx
xx

in the majors is play for 5.

a good rule for opening 2c is to do it if you're likely to make game opposite xxx xxx xxx xxx plus 1 useless card. the answer with an extra major suit queen would be yes.

and before anyone claims otherwise, you will often get passed out at the 1 level when you hold both majors and 20 high - opps won't rescue you if they're short in hearts.

[GrahamJson]

My view is that the N had isn't that far off a 2C bid. The old rule used to be "more quick tricks than losers". In this case it has 5 quick tricks and 4 losers, so qualifies, although I agree it is a bit light by modern standards.

The 5C response is a bit excessive. As 3C would be game forcing a jump to 4C should show a solid suit, so would be a reasonable bid. N could then cue bid 4D and end up in 6C when S has nothing more to say.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-13, 16:16, said:

But here I disagree. I think 5♣ should show something like ♣QJTxxxxx and out. The solid club hand can start with 4♣.

This is the old fashioned treatment that we still use.

Our auction would probably be (If I was brought to the table after the 2♣ bid which I wouldn't make) 2♣-4♣-5N-6♣ The 5N bid says "I know your suit is solid, but is it REALLY solid ?".

[fourdad]

hrothgar, on 2016-March-13, 07:05, said:

Given that neither you nor your partner had anything remotely resembling your bids, what do you expect us to say?

Let me start with the following: "Until you learn what a 2C opening looks like, you are not allowed to use words like Kickback"

Seriously, this may be the worst bid hand that I have seen in years.

I second this!

[PhilG007]

Lovera, on 2016-March-13, 06:41, said:

http://tinyurl.com/joe73uc

IMHO the 5♣ jump is ridiculous. Why waste bidding space like that? What's the rush???? A simple 3♣ response gives the
same message. It's game forcing and shows a good club suit. Over the 3 club bid,North can then start slam investigations by cue bidding his
first round controls. 6♣ would be a par contract on this deal.

[Caitlynne]

there is no solution for this hand, but there is a solution for you. Unless partner truly is a beginner or takes the position that he has been clueless with the 5C bid, it is time to end this partnership. Run, don't walk.

[PhilG007]

Caitlynne, on 2016-March-14, 07:13, said:

there is no solution for this hand, but there is a solution for you. Unless partner truly is a beginner or takes the position that he has been clueless with the 5C bid, it is time to end this partnership. Run, don't walk.

Agreed. An tennis doubles equivilant of this bidding is partner swooping to your side of the court screaming
"MINE PARTNER" poaching the ball and smashing it into the net.... Some players need reminding that they
are only half a partnership(!)

[kenberg]

There is some risk in opening this hand 1♠. Possibly it gets passed out when possibly you can make 4♥. But there is a bigger risk in opening 2♣. Obviously it takes up room, but also on a bad day you have no play for any game anywhere. Usually after a 2♣ opener there is some way to stop short of game, but with a two suited hand probably not. Eg 2♣-2♦-2♠ -3♣-3♠ may be passable but 2♣-2♦-2♠ -3♣-3♥ probably isn't, no matter how bad responder's hand is. So I, like just about everyone else, open this 1♠. This could go wrong. Not likely, but it could.

Now about the 5♣. I suppose some partnerships have discussed the auction 2♣-(P)-5♣. All those who have please raise their hands. So if any partner I had did it, I would waver between the extremes of: "I already said I had a big hand, if that sufficed for 6 or 7 partner should have bid it", so I pass or else "I never said I had any clubs, pard seems to not care, I have tricks and I have first round controls, so I will bid 7". I think I lean toward option 1. Ok, 6♣ is the winner, but I should know this how? I can see playing this 5♣ bid as a solid suit missing the AK and pretty much zip elsewhere, but I have never discussed this with anyone. I saw it in a book once, but I forget which one. If I were to set out agreements, I think that I would go with that. Advantages: It will rarely come up and it is unambiguous (if remembered).

I am interested in how the auction might go after a 1♠ opening. Assume 2/1, uncontested.
1♠-2♣ gf? Light on points, big on tricks if playing in clubs.
1♠-3♣ showing clubs and decent values, non-forcing?
1♠-1NT forcing? Somehow planning to bid 3♣ over partner's forced response seems way too mild. Of course here I imagine it would continue 1♠-1NT-3♥. Now we are in a gf, but I, as responder, have really not shown my hand at all.

I think, as responder, I would just hope for the best and bid 2♣ over 1♠. I would expect to be playing in clubs, and I have a lot of tricks in clubs as long as they don't have three tricks first.
Here, the continuation might be
1♠-2♣
2♥-3♣
3♥

Now at this point, as responder, I can look at my stiff diamond and decide that partner probably has at least some of the remaining twelve and so he is seriously short in clubs. It would be nice if 4♦ now showed a stiff diamonds and three card heart support, perhaps it does.If so, partner can now figure me for at most two spades, exactly three hearts, and one diamond. The rest is up to him.

[Zelandakh]

PhilG007, on 2016-March-14, 08:20, said:

Agreed. An tennis doubles equivilant of this bidding is partner swooping to your side of the court screaming
"MINE PARTNER" poaching the ball and smashing it into the net.... Some players need reminding that they
are only half a partnership(!)

Have you ever played tennis? If you serve and partner does this on the return you congratulate them on their quickness and encourage them saying something along the lines of the next one being a winner. This is good doubles play and you will see it (without the shout) from every top doubles pair in the world. The bridge equivalent is making a good preempt in 1st but finding out the rest of the hands are distributed such that it leads to a bad score. The best tennis analogy I can think of to the 5♣ response would be standing in the middle of the court at the net but even that is so severely flawed that it is probably better not to make any comparison at all.

[tfoerster]

2C is a poor bid, in my opinion, not just because it is light but also because I have found 2-suiters to be difficult to bid after opening with 2C.

The jump to 5C is atrocious, aweful, pick the most pejorative term you can come up with. Why take up so much bidding space when you have no idea if the hand belongs at 3N, 5, 6 or 7 clubs, 5, 6 or 7 NT, or somewhere else. Respond 3C, which is game forcing, and go slow.

[Lovera]

When i heared duble jump bidding of my partner (you can click on nickname to know) had a while to think at the meaning of it. In 2♣ the development is slow for having better informations and usual bidding rules are off. The jump is among these and the one i knew and that is the why was maked is about Reese convention that i mentioned anytime and the bidding remind me of but one level more or also as an aggressive 5♣ bidding (and i had understood right seeing partner hand) then, but non excluding a top missing raised to six.

[steve2005]

you get 8 losers if you have no major suit fit then all your small major cards are possible losers.
sure loser count better with 1 suiter but say you have a nice non-solid suit if not a fit your gonna lose cards not counted as losers in LC.
now if you have a 7+card solid or semi-solid suit youll have 8 or 9 winners which what matters, yes by coincidence youll have 4 losers but its the quick tricks which matter

[Lovera]

manudude03, on 2016-March-13, 13:01, said:

I much prefer the 5♣ bid to the 2♣ opener. Add the ♥Q and I'm still not opening 2♣. The play was also pretty poor, the contract was never in any danger, and so you could just play 4 rounds of trumps throwing 2 hearts, a spade and a diamond, after which it costs nothing to try for 3-3 spades or West having 3+ hearts and 4+spades.

..or just play two rounds of trump (with a little thinking about shape 4-2 more probable of 3-3) then "it cost nothing to try for 3-3 spades" and do you see what 's happening ? The suit is estabilished ...!

[Lovera]

steve2005, on 2016-March-14, 12:19, said:

you get 8 losers if you have no major suit fit then all your small major cards are possible losers.
sure loser count better with 1 suiter but say you have a nice non-solid suit if not a fit your gonna lose cards not counted as losers in LC.
now if you have a 7+card solid or semi-solid suit youll have 8 or 9 winners which what matters, yes by coincidence youll have 4 losers but its the quick tricks which matter

Here is what G. Barbone suggest :" A good way to evaluate the unsuitability of a hand for the opening of 2, can be as follows: -for all the suits of at least three cards there are many losers as they are Aces, Kings and Queens that are missing; if a suit is represented by two cards and these are to be considered both as losers when the best of the two is only the Queen; if a suit is represented by a singleton this is to be considered as a loser when it is not the Ace; the combination of Ace, Queen and x and King and x are considered as a 1.5 losers" then this number is multiply for 5 and if it is minus of MW points you can open.

[GrahamJson]

One minor point. I think that some posters are taking the term "losers" a little too literally. In the old system of hand evaluation there is a maximum of 3 losers in any suit. So, for example, xxxxx xxxxx xxx - would be considered to have nine losers, not thirteen. Of course, the actual number of losers will depend on fit. But then the same applies to points; the value of any hand will go up or down as bidding proceeds, depending on fit.

[PhilG007]

Lovera, on 2016-March-13, 07:02, said:

...when i was thinking if i had to use kickback to have informations i saw once (or was the second time?) "Automated :Lovera is your turn bid please" so i bid 6♣ when, in a while, i was off the table and i was unable to return. Now i see bidding is 5♣ : what is happened ? I and my partner cannot play it (and i think also GIB) but the planning development is rich (almost 4/5 ways). The "trap" is no trump 'cause comunication and controls because is not the case to remain quite.

If this deal came from a tournament,I would be curious in learning what contract(s) the other tables
were in. It should make for interesting reading(!)

[jordymil]

Lovera, on 2016-March-13, 06:41, said:

http://tinyurl.com/joe73uc

I couldn't see the hands