[eagles123]

---

I was south wasn't too sure what to do with this. My thought process was:

- double was wrong for 2 reasons: 1, P might leave it in, 2 P might make a pre-emptive spade bid.. then what.
- I was too good for a simple 3 clubs overcall (maybe that's what I should have done as I guess it's unlikely to be passed out when so distrubitional
- showing both minors would be potentially a bit pointless if p is say 3 diamonds, 2 clubs. besides my clubs are far better than the diamonds? also would have to bid 4NT to show that as 2N we play as natural.
- With my hand I feel like we should be in slam


so I chose 6 clubs. one off and a bottom when no-one else bid slam,

was this just a crazy bid (i suspect so) or was it a little unlucky

Thanks,

Eagles

[billw55]

I also worry about a double being left in. And agree to emphasize clubs rather than both minors. So I think it must be some number of clubs. 6♣ has some risk obviously but I don't think it is totally unreasonable. Ideal would be if 4♣ is forcing (no preempt over a preempt). Otherwise maybe 5♣ is the simplest choice.

Perhaps there should be some use for 4♥ in situations like this, but I am not sure exactly what that would be.

[eagles123]

4 clubs would be clubs and spades. As it happened 6 diamonds was on but 6 clubs wasn't (jxxx clubs on my left)

---

[jjbrr]

Before I saw the hand I was thinking "I bet 6D would be a good bid!" a la a thread featuring another famous 6D bid

[Fluffy]

Bid 4NT, and next bid 6♣, partner will bid 6♦ if aproppriate

[Cyberyeti]

 Fluffy, on 2013-July-25, 08:04, said:

Bid 4NT, and next bid 6♣, partner will bid 6♦ if aproppriate

This was my first thought.

[helene_t]

If you use 4♣ as clubs+spades you can use 4♥ for both minors. This gives you more room (than 4NT) to sort out differences in suit length/quality.

On this hand it isn't really necesary, though, as you will probably bid 6♣ next time anyway so you can also start with 4NT.

But 6♣ is not unreasonable. If you bid 4NT and partner later corrects 6♣ to 6♦ you can't be sure that he made the right decision, although he obviously did on this board.

[mikeh]

I empathize with your problem but I think that driving to slam is simply too aggressive, whether we are discussing the immediate leap to 6♣ or the alternatives espoused by some of 4N and then 6♣.

Yes, I see that 6♦ made, but it isn't a great contract, since K10xxx opposite Qxxx leaves a lot to be desired in terms of a trump suit, and even more so after an opposition pre-empt.

The 2♥ bid left you with little way of conveying the nature of the hand.

Nothing is perfect, and you don't need me to point that out, but my take on these situations is that you should pull in a little: given a choice between over aggression and over conservatism, choose the conservatism.

Here's why: if you are overly aggressive and are 'wrong' there is no hope. You are too high and partner can't take you back a level.

If you are overly conservative, then there remains some hope that partner will be able to act. IOW, the overly aggressive approach is completely unilateral and committal, while the conservative approach offers some, even tho modest, hope that partner can come through for us.

Thus I would choose 4N. This could be horrible if partner is short both minors. In that case, clubs may play better because we are unlikely to lose control in trumps, yet with 2=1 or a weak 3=2 minors, he'll put us in diamonds and we may get tapped out. However, we can't be THAT conservative with this hand. We should be assuming that we have play for some high level minor contract, else we may as well stay in bed.

I would pass partner's 5♦. Say he held xxxxx AQx AQxx x

Over 4N, he'll drive at least to slam and I would suggest he bid 5♥ as a grand slam try, tho I admit that getting to 7 isn't clear yet anyway. I mention this as an example of how choosing the conservative option doesn't end our chances of reaching a good contract.

I want to stress: the approach I am advocating applies only to choosing between two (or maybe 3) alternatives, where they lie on either side of the unattainable ideal descriptive call. I am not advising choosing conservative rather than normal, nor strongly conservative rather than mildly aggressive.

Here, it seems to me, all of your plausible choices were either overbids or underbids, with 4N being the least conservative underbid (compared to, say, 3♣ or 5♣) and 4N then slam or a direct slam as both being overbids.

[eagles123]

 mikeh, on 2013-July-25, 09:42, said:

I empathize with your problem but I think that driving to slam is simply too aggressive, whether we are discussing the immediate leap to 6♣ or the alternatives espoused by some of 4N and then 6♣.

Yes, I see that 6♦ made, but it isn't a great contract, since K10xxx opposite Qxxx leaves a lot to be desired in terms of a trump suit, and even more so after an opposition pre-empt.

The 2♥ bid left you with little way of conveying the nature of the hand.

Nothing is perfect, and you don't need me to point that out, but my take on these situations is that you should pull in a little: given a choice between over aggression and over conservatism, choose the conservatism.

Here's why: if you are overly aggressive and are 'wrong' there is no hope. You are too high and partner can't take you back a level.

If you are overly conservative, then there remains some hope that partner will be able to act. IOW, the overly aggressive approach is completely unilateral and committal, while the conservative approach offers some, even tho modest, hope that partner can come through for us.

Thus I would choose 4N. This could be horrible if partner is short both minors. In that case, clubs may play better because we are unlikely to lose control in trumps, yet with 2=1 or a weak 3=2 minors, he'll put us in diamonds and we may get tapped out. However, we can't be THAT conservative with this hand. We should be assuming that we have play for some high level minor contract, else we may as well stay in bed.

I would pass partner's 5♦. Say he held xxxxx AQx AQxx x

Over 4N, he'll drive at least to slam and I would suggest he bid 5♥ as a grand slam try, tho I admit that getting to 7 isn't clear yet anyway. I mention this as an example of how choosing the conservative option doesn't end our chances of reaching a good contract.

I want to stress: the approach I am advocating applies only to choosing between two (or maybe 3) alternatives, where they lie on either side of the unattainable ideal descriptive call. I am not advising choosing conservative rather than normal, nor strongly conservative rather than mildly aggressive.

Here, it seems to me, all of your plausible choices were either overbids or underbids, with 4N being the least conservative underbid (compared to, say, 3♣ or 5♣) and 4N then slam or a direct slam as both being overbids.

Thanks Mike, very helpful, I think I do tend to chose the overbid when faced with either an overbid or an underbid... sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't lol.

[blackshoe]

My first thought was 4NT showing both minors, but then I remembered RJOs. 4♣ would show this hand. The problem is that partner might pass. Is 4NT better? Well, at least you'll be in game.

[Antrax]

...so I take it 3♥ looking for 3NT (♥ stopper, ♠A, running clubs) is overly optimistic?

[wank]

 Antrax, on 2013-July-25, 22:39, said:

...so I take it 3♥ looking for 3NT (♥ stopper, ♠A, running clubs) is overly optimistic?

overly pessimistic. you'll miss millions of slams. i'd blast 6♣ via 4nt or 4H

[ggwhiz]

4nt is one way to go but 3♥ followed by 4♥ followed by clubs should do the trick.

[quiddity]

I agree with Mike's philosophy regarding slight conservatism but here I think 4NT (planning to pass 5♦) is a misbid, not an underbid. I would not want to be putting this hand down as dummy in 5♦ and seeing partner's face when KTxxx of trumps hits first followed by seven solid clubs and watching him get tortured after a trick-one tap. Sometimes you just have to guess the high road or the low road.