[maris oren]

Opening bid of 2 ♣ shows a strong hand/ How does one bid a 6 card club weak?

---

[apollo1201]

They use the « pass » bid for this😉😉

They might upgrade the hand to 3C if their partnership allows - but if partner bids 3NT intending to run 7 club tricks and ends up with 6, they have to be ready to admit it

[DavidKok]

3♣ or pass, though I think the former is much more common than the latter. Depending on seat and vulnerability this hand is too strong for 3♣ in my partnership...

[LBengtsson]

The only time I would open this hand either red or white is 3rd seat with 3♣. otherwise I would pass in all the other seats.

[LBengtsson]

The only time I would open this hand either red or white is 3rd seat with 3♣. otherwise I would pass in all the other seats.

[johnu]

apollo1201, on 2021-December-08, 00:10, said:

They might upgrade the hand to 3C if their partnership allows - but if partner bids 3NT intending to run 7 club tricks and ends up with 6, they have to be ready to admit it

I don't see how partner can expect to run 7 club tricks opposite a 3♣ opening without any of ♣AKQ.

[Cyberyeti]

johnu, on 2021-December-08, 04:57, said:

I don't see how partner can expect to run 7 club tricks opposite a 3♣ opening without any of ♣AKQ.

Particularly if you open 3N with AKQxxxx

[Tramticket]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-December-08, 07:33, said:

Particularly if you open 3N with AKQxxxx

This is the key.
- You are a club short of a 3NT opening.
- But partner won't expect a running suit for a 3C opening.
- The hand is close to a 1C opening, but a little light.
- There is no rule against passing.

[pescetom]

There is also a disclosure problem if you do contemplate 3♣.
Our card says that 3♣ is 6+, although partner is too sensible to pull this stunt and I am only likely to do so at favourable vulnerability or in third.

I guess it might make sense to bundle this hand (6-card solid or semi-solid clubs, no side A/K) into a 2♦ opening (natural or Multi), if that is legal in your jurisdiction (would be a Brown Sticker here). Just thinking out loud here, though.

[mycroft]

As you can see from all the other answers, *like every other question about preempts*, "it depends. Do what partner expects."

That could be 3♣ (for many, it could be 3♣ if it were AQJxxx, but AKQxxx might be too good. For my regular partnerships, partner will expect 7, but our prime consideration is "partner will not be disappointed when I put dummy down in 3NT." And AKQxxx certainly fits as well as AQJxxxx, or KQTxxxx and an outside K). That could be 1♣ ("1, then 2 is an "overstrength preempt", right?) That could be pass (wouldn't you rather show this hand to partner's 1NT? Or not show this hand to opponents' 1NT (better yet if it then goes 3NT)?)

No matter what you pick, you will be right on some hands, and wrong on others. Best to be "right" according to your agreement with partner, and celebrate when it works and shrug off when it doesn't.

[DavidKok]

I 100% agree with mycroft.

And I think I finally understand what people mean when they say that we don't preempt enough. They're talking about the rest of the posters here. I'd open 3♣ even without the sixth one, if not vulnerable.

[steve2005]

DavidKok, on 2021-December-08, 03:56, said:

3♣ or pass, though I think the former is much more common than the latter. Depending on seat and vulnerability this hand is too strong for 3♣ in my partnership...

Definitely too strong for 3♣ in 1st and 2nd seat.
Opposite a 3♣ preempt responder will want to have an A,K, or Q♣ to bid 3NT expecting clubs to run. So good chance you will miss game.

[Winstonm]

Play Precision and this hand as a natural 2C opener looks better. I understand the thread but when not opening 1C the bidding is mostly natural.

[apollo1201]

johnu, on 2021-December-08, 04:57, said:

I don't see how partner can expect to run 7 club tricks opposite a 3♣ opening without any of ♣AKQ.

I was answering to the OP question « how to bid a 6-cd C weak » and not the specifically given example, fully acknowledging now that it is ambiguous.

I was thinking a more common situation where the suit is not as strong, eg a more common hand with 2 honors and maybe a side card, partner contemplating the other honor in a hand roughly like a strong NT opening.

[pilowsky]

Well, that's the nature of Bridge: sometimes it works and sometimes you blame your partner.
From the perspective of a non-expert I also like the pass except in third seat white vs red when I would bid 3C - but I would like to know if my hunch is based on reality.


It would be nice to know what the real-world probability is - assuming optimal play and a tournament matchpoints situation.


Is it a 50/50, 40/60 or 10/90 proposition?
With 9 HCP in 3rd seat, it is possible that 4th seat has a monster but it seems more likely they will have 14-17 and their partner has 7-9 (with no 6 S,H or D suit).
With a pretty large variance.
Although if 1st and 2nd seat are constrained to having less than opening points and no 6 card other and with 7-9 HCP this should be fairly straightforward to simulate.


A quick check suggests that fourth seat having 14-16 is about right.

[mycroft]

Surely xxx is good enough - at least as good as Hx - opposite what I suggest is a suit good enough for 3♣? And it's good enough for AKQxxx, too.

But, if your style is to open 3♣ on QT9xxxx and a card - well then it isn't.

As I said - if partner isn't going to bid 3NT without a high club honour, then you maybe shouldn't be opening AKQxxx 3m. If you think three card support should be enough, then you'd better pass the less-than semi-solid 7-baggers.

[johnu]

mycroft, on 2021-December-08, 17:31, said:

Surely xxx is good enough - at least as good as Hx - opposite what I suggest is a suit good enough for 3♣? And it's good enough for AKQxxx, too.

But, if your style is to open 3♣ on QT9xxxx and a card - well then it isn't.

As I said - if partner isn't going to bid 3NT without a high club honour, then you maybe shouldn't be opening AKQxxx 3m. If you think three card support should be enough, then you'd better pass the less-than semi-solid 7-baggers.

Surely xxx is not as good as Hx opposite a typical preempt. With Hx, you have hopes of winning the opening lead, running 7 tricks in the preempt suit, and then having a quick trick someplace else for 9 top tricks. With xxx, your expectation is to have to lose a trick(s) in the preempt suit before running the suit (exceptions, AK 7th, AQ 7th). If you have to lose a trick, you probably will need a double stopper in the opening lead suit, and if RHO gets the lead they can lead through a vulnerable tenace.

[Cyberyeti]

mycroft, on 2021-December-08, 17:31, said:

Surely xxx is good enough - at least as good as Hx - opposite what I suggest is a suit good enough for 3♣? And it's good enough for AKQxxx, too.

KQJ10xxx says hi

[mycroft]

Yeah, that's what you need - a hand that can survive one-loser. If where your preempts are is "Hx will take 7 tricks", then fine - that's your agreement. Again. And, of course, AKQxxx - won't.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-December-09, 09:07, said:

Yeah, that's what you need - a hand that can survive one-loser. If where your preempts are is "Hx will take 7 tricks", then fine - that's your agreement. Again. And, of course, AKQxxx - won't.

I can see it for diamonds, but is "Hx will take 6+ tricks" such a terrible agreement for clubs?
It might still be fruitful, in absence of an alternative opening for AKQxxx with rubbish alongside.