[CSGibson]

---

bid on, lay it down, or what? Can you bid clubs naturally in this auction in your partnership without implying some diamond tolerance (not asking what is best, just for what is actually done)?

This is a new partnership, so no agreements other than partnership style is such that the 3♦ bid can be very aggressive even at this vulnerability.

[Hanoi5]

I'd bid 5♣. I have 9 cards! And I don't think the auction will stop here, I don't even think partner will have the oppontunity to bid 5♦, nor that he would, I'm sure he has some clubs...

[aguahombre]

6♣. Opposite very aggressive and red, still 6♣. Yes 5 would be to play.

[han]

I would certainly bid 5C.

[the_clown]

5♣. Since I am leading against ♠contracts it cannot be purely lead directing

[Tomi2]

the_clown, on 2012-August-10, 01:38, said:

5♣. Since I am leading against ♠contracts it cannot be purely lead directing

I am used to play the other round, partner will be on lead and 5 clubs invites him to lead a club, to compeate till 6 dias if they outbid us, or even further but not to pass... sry guys, i am dealt 9 suits in 4th position too seldom so I have the agreement that such bids are with fit

[Phil]

Just 5♣, and I would not be surprised to go down. If partner bids 5♦, that might be OK too.

[aguahombre]

My alleged brain is not sim-programmed, but particularly played from my side opposite a red 3♦ --aggressive but not totally nuts style-- 6♣ might just be more successful than 5 (in IMP odds).

Maybe a real sim would prove this to be wrong, but maybe it is worth checking out at the various vuls. Or not. Looks like we have a 25-point deck, here...maybe less if we discount the hearts, too.

[Phil]

aguahombre, on 2012-August-10, 08:40, said:

My alleged brain is not sim-programmed, but particularly played from my side opposite a red 3♦ --aggressive but not totally nuts style-- 6♣ might just be more successful than 5 (in IMP odds).

Maybe a real sim would prove this to be wrong, but maybe it is worth checking out at the various vuls. Or not. Looks like we have a 25-point deck, here.

For 6♣ to be right, we need:

1. No more than one trump loser
2. No diamond lead (or shift if our trump are 3-1)
3. AKJ of diamonds

Seems like a lot.

[Phil]

the_clown, on 2012-August-10, 01:38, said:

5♣. Since I am leading against ♠contracts it cannot be purely lead directing

Sure, but declarer has five options after you lead out of turn.

[aguahombre]

Phil, on 2012-August-10, 08:43, said:

For 6♣ to be right, we need:

1. No more than one trump loser
2. No diamond lead (or shift if our trump are 3-1)
3. AKJ of diamonds

Seems like a lot.

Yeh, maybe. But I was thinking of occasional 1-1 trump breaks opposite almost anything in Diamonds, the few times when pard has 3 clubs, etc. where all of those 3 things are not needed. Probably just a pipe dream.

[mikeh]

I don't understand why so many posters seem to assume that it is our preempting partner who rates to hold the outstanding club length. We are told that he is aggressive.....what would he have done with xxx xxx AKJxxxx void, to offer just one hand on which even a moderately conservative preemptor might bid?

Obviously, we can't bid scared, and 5♣ will often work even when he has a void or stiff club.

It's just that I think bidding 6♣ is weird. It may work, but it is extremely high risk, since it is often going to be doubled and may go 800 or more. I'd want to feel that we had at least a 50% chance of making in order to justify the call. And we shouldn't expect the opps to save, given our hand.

I bid 5♣. In my preferred style, it MAY be lead-directing, but partner is to assume natural until I prove otherwise, which I do by running to diamonds after I get doubled.

This tactic can be costly when red: I recall a hand written up in the BW many years ago..it was a big event....the N player, in an analogous position, bid his void but the opps crossed him up by passing it out, and scoring more on defence than they had available in their game contract.

[ggwhiz]

On a coin flip I'm bidding 6♣ expecting a 6♠ dive as often as I'm wrong and on Mikes example hand above, I'll make it if the clubs are 2-2.

[han]

ggwhiz, on 2012-August-10, 11:46, said:

on Mikes example hand above, I'll make it if the clubs are 2-2.

Yes, except when they lead a diamond.

mikeh, on 2012-August-10, 09:21, said:

I don't understand why so many posters seem to assume that it is our preempting partner who rates to hold the outstanding club length.

I saw only 1 poster mention that he is sure that partner has some clubs. While I agree with you that 1 is too many, some clubs is not the same as the outstanding club length.

Quote

It's just that I think bidding 6♣ is weird.

Definitely agree with this, but before your post only aquahombre wanted to bid 6C and he already admitted that it was probably too much.

mikeh, on 2012-August-10, 09:21, said:

I bid 5♣. In my preferred style, it MAY be lead-directing, but partner is to assume natural until I prove otherwise, which I do by running to diamonds after I get doubled.

I also prefer this agreement.

[gnasher]

If 5[C] is to play, I'll bid that.

I usually play bids like 5♣ as fit-showing, so I would be poorly placed. Given that agreement, I'd bid 6♣, which may make, push them into a save, or be a good sacrifice.

[JLOGIC]

I'd probably bid 6 either way playing my normal style. Playing "3D can be very aggressive" I would just bid 5.