[OleBerg]

pooltuna, on 2010-November-23, 10:15, said:

presummably partner is holding
♠2
♥65432
♦432
♣9862

if you pass and
♠32
♥65432
♦65432
♣2

if you bid

If I bid (Double) it will be:

♠ 32
♥ 765432
♦ 5432
♣ 2

[mfa1010]

Settle for a slightly conservative 4♣. Pass?? That would be really absurd.

[Echognome]

rhm, on 2010-November-23, 07:11, said:

4♣ stands out. I do not feel stuck here, because 4♣ describes what I have, a jump rebid in ♣ if partner had responded. I do not understand how one can pass. Is partner supposed to balance vulnerable with ♠x,♥xxx,♦xxxxx,♣Axxx ?

Rainer Herrmann

This hand has an obvious bid over 1♠. The question is what hands that pass 1♠ are you hoping to cater for?

[jschafer]

I'm not stuck, 4♣!

[ArtK78]

Pass is REALLY wimpy.

My first thought was to bid 5♣, but that would take partner having Axx or xxxx of clubs to be good (I am assuming that partner has a singleton spade). Bidding 4♣ should get us to 5♣ when it is right, but, as has already been pointed out above, it is unlikely to get us to 6♣ opposite x xxxx xxxx Axxx.

I am not worried about going for a number, but I suppose it is possible.

[rhm]

Echognome, on 2010-November-23, 15:33, said:

This hand has an obvious bid over 1♠. The question is what hands that pass 1♠ are you hoping to cater for?

If I thought pass would be wrong over 1♠ with this hand red versus white, I would not have chosen it.

Rainer Herrmann

[mohitz]

I usually pass these hands. Judging by the replies, perhaps i shouldn't.

[Cascade]

rhm, on 2010-November-23, 07:11, said:

4♣ stands out. I do not feel stuck here, because 4♣ describes what I have, a jump rebid in ♣ if partner had responded. I do not understand how one can pass. Is partner supposed to balance vulnerable with ♠x,♥xxx,♦xxxxx,♣Axxx ?

Rainer Herrmann

My partner would raise immediately with that.

[Hanoi5]

I'd bid 4♣ but Pass remains a clear second option.

[rhm]

Cascade, on 2010-November-23, 22:30, said:

My partner would raise immediately with that.

You are red versus white. If you are playing 4 card majors I consider 2♣ barely acceptable. When the system is not specified, one should assume 5 card majors and strong notrump.
I do not espouse that free bids have to show more, but with a sub-minimum for responding, pass is now a valid option, since opponents have kept the bidding open for you. Over 1♣ you might have bid 1♦, though even here pass would not have been wrong.
Now bidding 2♣ freely over 1 ♠ vulnerable is just asking for trouble. 2♣ should either show more ♣ or more strength. Opener is likely to over-compete and you will concede 200 or even more or opener will double opponents, when you can not beat them.

Rainer Herrmann

[mcphee]

I do indeed hope partner is understanding and has 3 or more ♣ and on the days he has just 2 and a possible dog they may not double. This day will be real depressing if the guy over called a 4 suit holding 4♣. Just imagine if partner had 4 ♣ along with 1♠even with 3 you have a shot at 5. Too much to gain from bidding, this is the last chance.

[gwnn]

I don't understand rhm, what does 'overcompete' mean? If you mean partner bids 3♣ over 2♠, I'm very happy. I have a singleton and a very pure hand. Competing depends on purity, or offence-to-defence ratio, it does not really depend on overall values.

[rhm]

gwnn, on 2010-November-24, 06:53, said:

I don't understand rhm, what does 'overcompete' mean? If you mean partner bids 3♣ over 2♠, I'm very happy. I have a singleton and a very pure hand. Competing depends on purity, or offence-to-defence ratio, it does not really depend on overall values.

If opener had shown ♣ I agree, but 1♣ is often based on 3 cards when you play 5 card majors. That's why system matters here. Most would not have considered 2♣ if RHO had passed. Opener could easily be 4=3=3=3 or 3=4=3=3, in which case I doubt that a ♣ contract will do well. As opener I would expect 5 ♣ cards and consider 4 cards a rare exception, particularly when I can deduce that partner must be short in ♠. Not that unlikely that opener has a strong balanced hand when you are weak. I think if you bid freely 2♣ vulnerable, opener is entitled to bid 3NT with 18-19 and a balanced hand or he will double if LHO jumps to 3♠, with 18-19 balanced. Also if opener bids 2♠ next I would not know what to do. I can think of even worse scenarios.

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

what you describe is not overcompeting in my dictionary. overcompeting as I understand is competing overly - bidding a partscore over their partscore in competition when passing would have been more successful. anyway, sure, sometimes we will go down in 3N and in some rare occasions partner will double them when it's wrong and in some rare occasions partner will double them when it's dead on accurate and we get rich rich. I did not dispute those parts of your post, only the overcompeting part.

[TimG]

rhm, on 2010-November-24, 07:29, said:

Opener could easily be 4=3=3=3 or 3=4=3=3, in which case I doubt that a ♣ contract will do well.

I wonder what percentage you assign to "could easily be"?

I would be more inclined to bump immediately to 3♣ than to pass with ♠x ♥xxx ♦xxxxx ♣Axxx, but I come from a four-card majors background which may be leading me astray here.

[Fluffy]

Are you sure Tim? you are vulnerable!. I am not very agressive I know, but to put me in your 4c major situation I think about raising 1♦ to 3♦ with ♦Axxx and out and it makes my guts struggle, with clubs its jus nonsense

[Phil]

If partner has any hand with 3 clubs and a singleton spade I am overjoyed. They do not always lead a trump on this bidding and even if they do trump could be 2-2 (and dummy will have a five card red suit - maybe diamonds), and if trump are 3-1 they are making 3♠.

I really do not understand pass at all.

[MrAce]

Easy 4♣ for me.

[TimG]

Fluffy, on 2010-November-24, 12:55, said:

Are you sure Tim? you are vulnerable!. I am not very agressive I know, but to put me in your 4c major situation I think about raising 1♦ to 3♦ with ♦Axxx and out and it makes my guts struggle, with clubs its jus nonsense

You're not "♣Axxx and out", you're 1354 But, I concede it may be wrong, especially in a 5cM framework.

[cherdano]

Fluffy, on 2010-November-24, 12:55, said:

Are you sure Tim? you are vulnerable!. I am not very agressive I know, but to put me in your 4c major situation I think about raising 1♦ to 3♦ with ♦Axxx and out and it makes my guts struggle, with clubs its jus nonsense

I would definitely raise to 2♣ with 1354 and ♣Axxx.