[jddons]

---

Teams. Strong NT, 5 card majors and better minor. Is Easts call completely obvious to everybody?

If Bridge World was still being published, what would the expert panel give to pass, 1NT and 2C?

I'm trying you lot before Prozac.

[hrothgar]

jddons, on 2020-May-10, 02:49, said:

---

Teams. Strong NT, 5 card majors and better minor. Is Easts call completely obvious to everybody?

If Bridge World was still being published, what would the expert panel give to pass, 1NT and 2C?

I'm trying you lot before Prozac.

I didn't know Bridge World had shut down publication

I'd rate this as

2C: 50
Pass: 35
1NT: 15

[pilowsky]

As a beginner playing 3+ ♣ as the opener, I would go for 3♣ as the responder. I would do this assuming that the double by North narrows my partners point range to 11-14, and we're not vulnerable, I have 7HCP and 4♣. With 18 HCP EW (at least), this makes it hard for South to make a call. Hrothgar is a much better player than me though so he's probably right. Mind you Prozac is an excellent drug: "The more amines you have the happier you are".

[hrothgar]

pilowsky, on 2020-May-10, 03:48, said:

As a beginner playing 3+ ♣ as the opener, I would go for 3♣ as the responder. I would do this assuming that the double by North narrows my partners point range to 11-14, and we're not vulnerable, I have 7HCP and 4♣. With 18 HCP EW (at least), this makes it hard for South to make a call. Hrothgar is a much better player than me though so he's probably right. Mind you Prozac is an excellent drug: "The more amines you have the happier you are".

Note:

There are hands with 4 card club support where I would bid 3♣, however, in this case I am sitting on a defensively oriented 4333 hand and keeping things low seems best.

[pilowsky]

Thanks - that was a question that has been bugging me. Sorry about Alderaan.

[blackshoe]

jddons, on 2020-May-10, 02:49, said:

If Bridge World was still being published

The Bridge World's website doesn't indicate in any way that they have ceased publication. Also, I bought a couple of books from them just recently. Not to mention I got the latest issue of the mag not long ago. So this seems like a base rumor.

[sfi]

jddons, on 2020-May-10, 02:49, said:

what would the expert panel give to pass, 1NT and 2C?

Those are the only reasonable choices. 2C will help partner compete if we should be doing so, and we won't miss game if partner has the 18-19 balanced hand. I don't want to discourage partner from further action with this hand, so would rate 1NT as a reasonable second choice. I'd probably swap Hrothgar's last two choices:

2C: 50
1NT: 35
Pass: 15

[helene_t]

Without the double, 1NT would be fairly normal with this shape. Some bid 1♦ in order to rightside a notrump contract but that is not considered so important in modern bridge theory, and besides it might not work if we don't play Walsh. The downside of 1♦ is that opps find their major suit fit before we find our clubs fit.

So even without the double, I would prefer 2♣ if not playing inverted minors. If we do play inverted minors, I would prefer 1NT. Would not be surprised if some good players would bid 1♦ or 3♣.

With the double, 1♦ is even less attractive as it is now a more voluntary bid and therefore should be a real suit. Partner might raise on 3-card support if we don't play support doubles. Or correct 3♣ to 3♦ with 4-5 minors. Besides, opps are more likely to have a major suit fit, so tactical considerations become more important after the double. I think. I suppose you could argue that due to the double, opps already know what they are doing, so we can't achieve so much with preemptive bidding.

1NT is possible but rightsiding becomes more important after the double. Besides, pass is now an alternative, as is 2♣ even if we would have played inverted minors without the double. As is a 1♥ or 1♠ psyche.

I dunno about experts but I would personally give something like
80 2♣
10 1NT (but only because of the vulnerability)
5 pass (would give it a lot more if playing phony club)
5 3♣ but only because of the vulnerability.
0 1♦
0 1M - maybe not bad but I don't normally give points to psyches, even in situations where I might consider psyching.

BTW Bridge World doesn't use SAYC for the MSC. This matters a little bid since BWS (unlike SAYC) has support doubles, so bidding a 3-card suit becomes a bit safer.

[jddons]

Well, not even a reply from cyberyeti! What are things coming to? Like those of you above, my partner and team mates thought 2C completely normal on the hand. For the life of me, I can't understand why a hand with poor trumps and no ruffing value wants to play at the 2 level when trumps might well break 5-1. I score Pass 5, 1N 3, 2C 2, 3C -1 but then as team mates said - you don't know how to play the 3 card minor opening. At the other table 1NX made by W for -180, 2C should make.

As far as Bridge World is concerned, a friend gave me a large number of back numbers, the last of which (2014/15?) said that publication was ceasing. I didn't check. Loved the mag but still got a few years worth to read through! Sorry for the fake news - I blame the TRUMPS.

[Cyberyeti]

jddons, on 2020-May-13, 02:53, said:

Well, not even a reply from cyberyeti! What are things coming to? Like those of you above, my partner and team mates thought 2C completely normal on the hand. For the life of me, I can't understand why a hand with poor trumps and no ruffing value wants to play at the 2 level when trumps might well break 5-1. I score Pass 5, 1N 3, 2C 2, 3C -1 but then as team mates said - you don't know how to play the 3 card minor opening. At the other table 1NX made by W for -180, 2C should make.

As far as Bridge World is concerned, a friend gave me a large number of back numbers, the last of which (2014/15?) said that publication was ceasing. I didn't check. Loved the mag but still got a few years worth to read through! Sorry for the fake news - I blame the TRUMPS.

I'm no expert in short minor auctions like this and play 2♣ still inverted over the double so not well placed to comment. I'd bid 1N playing what I play.

[Tramticket]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-May-13, 03:35, said:

I'm no expert in short minor auctions like this and play 2♣ still inverted over the double so not well placed to comment. I'd bid 1N playing what I play.

Not my system either. We wouldn't even be in this situation as partner would have opened 1NT!

Inverted minors are definitely off for us and I think that it is a close call between raising to 2!c and passing. I'm not particularly inclined to bid 1NT, which would show 8-10 in this sequence for us.

[pescetom]

For us 2♣ here is strongly invitational (without double it would be GF) and barely justified, so pass gets most of the vote.
We don't have a precise definition of redouble in such situations but probably should.

[pilowsky]

Well, just fwiw while waiting for my apples to cook I pumped the options through BBO GIB here they are:
1♣ X 1NT PPP best lead for opps gives 1NT= +50 EW link
1♣ X 3♣ PPP any lead gives 3♣-1 =-50 EW link
I wasn't sure what was supposed to happen after 2♣ so here is 1♣ X 2♣ 2♥ 3♣ 3NT PPP link obviously bad
How about 1♣ 1NT PPP = +50 link
But the best news is that now I added the bridge solver add-in to Chrome: here is the link!

Thank you John Goacher and Bo Haglund

[Povratnik]

Being from another part of the world, it seems I am missing something. To me, 2♣ is clearly the worst of the three speeches. 1NT sounds as a normal and fully adequate bid; PASS sounds as an interesting and reasonable try to make better than normal result.

Everybody favours 2♣ without giving useful arguments. You think that lying opponents is so important that you voluntarily lie the partner. Why?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

for what's it worth, I would go with 1NT.
Unless you are too weak for a 1 NT in the uncontested auction, I dont see, why I should not
do it now.
It showes some live, and it showes some club tolerance, and it is also a bid preemptive.

Before I pass or bid 2C, I would go with 1D.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hrothgar]

Povratnik, on 2020-May-15, 06:50, said:

Everybody favours 2♣ without giving useful arguments. You think that lying opponents is so important that you voluntarily lie the partner. Why?

How am I lying to either partner or the opponents?

I have 4 card support for a suit that partner opened
Plenty of people (myself included) prioritize showing trump support in competitive auctions.

If I had a bit more shape (and the same trump support) I'd likely bid 3!C

Note: While partner MIGHT only have three clubs, his expected club length is significantly higher

[mycroft]

I would pass. I have no shape and minimum values. Partner has more calls, and I can show my "didn't want to bid, clubs" hand next round.

But if you forced me to bid, supporting partner in a competitive auction comes first. Making the safest call comes second. Bidding NT in the teeth of a double and with one suit wide open, even protecting two kings (but chances are they're in the right spot anyway, given the double) is right up there with faking a medical emergency.

I agree with Hrothgar here - there's no lie. I'm saying I have a minimum responding hand with club support, and lookee, I do. It's a pile, but if we have a fit, it's in clubs.

(Note, I may be biased in my thinking by playing so much K/S, where partner either has real clubs or 15+ BAL. Either way, 2♣ seems sensible, and I sure do (not) want to put the strong hand down as dummy, with the opening lead through her points into the doubler's.)

[Povratnik]

hrothgar, on 2020-May-15, 10:22, said:

How am I lying to either partner or the opponents?

mycroft, on 2020-May-15, 14:35, said:

I agree with Hrothgar here - there's no lie. I'm saying I have a minimum responding hand with club support, and lookee, I do. It's a pile, but if we have a fit, it's in clubs.

When you say 2♣, what's your distribution?

Perhaps is better to ask the question different way:
You open 1♣, LHO passes/doubles, partner bids 2♣. What do you know/assume about partners distribution?

[hrothgar]

Povratnik, on 2020-May-15, 15:16, said:

You open 1♣, LHO passes/doubles, partner bids 2♣. What do you know/assume about partners distribution?

I assume that he has a weak hand - say 5-7 HCP - with 4+ Clubs and (typically) denies a four card major

[Povratnik]

hrothgar, on 2020-May-15, 15:42, said:

I assume that he has a weak hand - say 5-7 HCP - with 4+ Clubs and (typically) denies a four card major

Balanced or distributional?
Probabilities of 4 cards, 5 cards, 6(+) cards?

(All those question will also be answered by me. I can do it first, if it's helpful...)
I'll answer the questions tomorrow.