[catch22]

Scoring: IMP

---

[3D]-5C*-P-?

*4C would have clubs and a major

What do you bid?

[helene_t]

Pass but it's close.

[gwnn]

under normal conditions this would be a 6♣ wtp hand. like this (non-leaping michaels) I have t pass, VERY reluctantly

[Raivis]

5C is limited bid.
With very strong or distribution hand first bid t/o double (in your agreement) or show diamond shortness/cue bid.

PASS.

[whereagles]

I'm a bit better than what could be expected... we might have a major ace to lose and a club... hum.. not easy. I think I pass and take a plus.

[foo]

catch22, on Dec 21 2007, 05:17 AM, said:

West,None,IMP,
KJT2_KQ32_AJ4_76

(3D)-5C*-P-?

*4C would have clubs and a major

What do you bid?

"Never preempt a Preempter".

Since CHO is, they must not care about my hand.
Therefore 5C is To Play.

Since CHO had X and cuebid both available to start a strong auction and did not use them, this is not a strong auction.

Pass. In tempo.

If We get a bad score, it is far more likely to be bad bidding on CHO's part or bad luck than it is to be our fault for passing with the given hand here.

Side note on methods: traditionally one uses the jump overcalls of a preempt to show shapely 2 suiters with great playing strength and reserves the simple overcall for all the hands a more natural call is good for... ...and it saves space for the hands that are more likely to need it.

[Codo]

Do you expect pd to bid 5 Club on xx,xx,x,AKQJTxxx?
Or with a queen more?
I do, but I guess he will bid 5 Club on Ax,Ax,xxx,AKQxxx too.

SO I go for slam. I have more then he expectes.
This is the price I pay for playing non leaping michaels: Sometimes I have to guess at a high level.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Dec 21 2007, 04:21 PM, said:

"Never preempt a Preempter".

Since CHO is, they must not care about my hand.
Therefore 5C is To Play.

Since CHO had X and cuebid both available to start a strong auction and did not use them, this is not a strong auction.

Pass.  In tempo.

If We get a bad score, it is far more likely to be bad bidding on CHO's part or bad luck than it is to be our fault for passing with the given hand here.

Side note on methods:  traditionally one uses the jump overcalls of a preempt to show shapely 2 suiters with great playing strength and reserves the simple overcall for all the hands a more natural call is good for... ...and it saves space for the hands that are more likely to need it.

WTF are you talking about

1. As I understand matters, the original saying is that you don't preempt over preempts. This does not mean that a jump overcall by partner means that he doesn't care about my hand. Rather, the standard agreement is that a jump over a preempt shows strength rather than weakness.

2. In this case, LHO opened 3♦. The original poster states that a 4♣ bid would show a two suited hand. Its quite unclear whether the "jump" to 5♣ carries the same inferences if a natural 4♣ had been available.

3. Where do you get the idea that jump overcalls of a preempt traditionally show two suited hand patterns? My understanding is that bids like

(2♦) - 3♥ or
(2♥) - 3♠

were used to show strong single suited hands. Its true that conventions like Leaping Michaels have come into vogue. However, my impression is that this is relatively recent.

[foo]

Bidding space is a precious commodity. Even more so after the opponents take some by preempting.

Therefore one strains to design System such that hands that are more likely to need a conversational auction have as many sequences as possible available to them, and that means bids that chew up unnecessary amounts of space are "picture bids" where We do not need to have much of a bidding conversation to place the contract.

The idea of using jump overcalls in new suits over preempts to show 2 suited hands of appropriate playing strength goes back to at least the Italian Blue Team. It's not even close to a new idea.

Hence my point to the OP that they have System backwards from what most would consider standard.

As for the OP question within the methods they are using, Overcaller definitely had other ways of bidding a strong ♣ hand:
a= X, then bid ♣'s
b= cue bid, then bid ♣'s
c= X, then cue bid, then bid ♣'s

Simply bidding (3D)-5C when we are holding KJT2_KQ32_AJ4_76 implies a 2way bid based mostly on shape by pard.
Something like (xxx.xx.x).AKxxxxx or (Hxx.xx.x)KQxxxxx (or even better the same sort of thing with 8 ♣'s in it) comes to mind

Since we can't make any move with putting Us in what may be a bad slam, it's better to take the sure plus rather than risk turning a good board into a bad one.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Dec 21 2007, 06:50 PM, said:

The idea of using jump overcalls in new suits over preempts to show 2 suited hands of appropriate playing strength goes back to at least the Italian Blue Team.  It's not even close to a new idea.

Are you sure that you aren't confusing Roman Jump Overcalls with methods over preempts?

I'm at work and don't have access to any of my books on Blue Club so I can't check anything immediately.

I do recall that the section on competitive methods discussed using Jump over calls of a 1 level bid to show intermediate strength hands with 2 known suits. (Strong 2 suited patterns were shown with a jump in NT)

I don't recall any discussion whether such methods applied over preempts.

Unfortunately, none of my World Championship Books date back into the 50s or 60s. I don't suppose than anyone has examples showing jump overcall's of preempts by any of the Italian pairs?

[foo]

Codo, on Dec 21 2007, 08:27 AM, said:

Do you expect pd to bid 5 Club on xx,xx,x,AKQJTxxx?
Or with a queen more?
I do, but I guess he will bid 5 Club on Ax,Ax,xxx,AKQxxx too.

SO I go for slam. I have more then he expectes.
This is the price I pay for playing non leaping michaels: Sometimes I have to guess at a high level.

With your 1st example, I X then bid ♣'s.

With your 2nd example, what strain we should play is much less clear.
If GOP has scattered values and a ♦ stop, NT may be our best spot.
So that looks like I begin with a X as well.
Here I need even less to make a slam, so I may very well cue bid next.
(Especially if pard implies ♦ shortness).

[pclayton]

foo, on Dec 21 2007, 07:50 AM, said:

Bidding space is a precious commodity. Even more so after the opponents take some by preempting.

Therefore one strains to design System such that hands that are more likely to need a conversational auction have as many sequences as possible available to them, and that means bids that chew up unnecessary amounts of space are "picture bids" where We do not need to have much of a bidding conversation to place the contract.

The idea of using jump overcalls in new suits over preempts to show 2 suited hands of appropriate playing strength goes back to at least the Italian Blue Team. It's not even close to a new idea.

Hence my point to the OP that they have System backwards from what most would consider standard.

As for the OP question within the methods they are using, Overcaller definitely had other ways of bidding a strong ♣ hand:
a= X, then bid ♣'s
b= cue bid, then bid ♣'s
c= X, then cue bid, then bid ♣'s

Simply bidding (3D)-5C when we are holding KJT2_KQ32_AJ4_76 implies a 2way bid based mostly on shape by pard.
Something like (xxx.xx.x).AKxxxxx or (Hxx.xx.x)KQxxxxx (or even better the same sort of thing with 8 ♣'s in it) comes to mind

Since we can't make any move with putting Us in what may be a bad slam, it's better to take the sure plus rather than risk turning a good board into a bad one.

Foo, you are so full of crap.

5♣ is a real strong call, even if 4♣ is played as Roman. It's not some "2-way bid".

I don't know how the OP would play double followed by clubs, but presumably its a flexible hand, and not just a strong hand.

This is a very clear 6♣ call. Pard has a long powerful string of clubs and at least one of the missing aces. Assuming LHO has 7♦'s (not a lock I know) eithe pard or RHO has a singleton, so there's no worry in that suit.

5♦ is OK too, but I just don't think I have enough to make grand slam noises.

[Apollo81]

I'm not familiar with this 4♣ convention. What do you do when you have AKQJxxx of clubs and out or KQJ8th of clubs and a stick? If the answer is "bid 5c" (I suspect it is) and double on stronger single suited club hands (normal 5♣ bids) then I would pass. I'd certainly raise if not playing that convention.

[foo]

pclayton said:

  Foo, you are so full of crap...

Traditionally, a T/O X followed by the bid of a new suit shows a strong hand. Since Eric Kokish has been influencing Bidding Theory, it's been tending to show even stronger hands than it used to.

X followed by a new suit has !never! shown a flexible hand. It has always shown a strong single suited hand.

X followed by a new suit or X followed by a cue bid are both much stronger hands than a simple overcall or the immediate bid of game.

Immediately bidding game is a "I think We have decent chances to make this and no more than this" bid. It is the =weakest= way to get to game of all the ways of bidding a single suited hand.

At this point, I've commented on at least 4 or 5 hand types for this auction and how I understand expert consensus is to bid on each. Those examples show a system that handles more hand types more successfully than the system implied by those thinking that an immediate 5C here is odds on for 6C opposite the OP Advancer.

Please look at all the possible sequences and the hand types best associated with them before you so blythely state that I am mistaken.

[awm]

Foo himself quoted the rule don't preempt over preempts.

What this means is, partner should be bidding 5♣ with some expectation to make. You don't bid on bad hands over preempts, or try to take advance sacrifices over preempts.

Now obviously just because partner bid 5♣ expecting to make it doesn't mean he has eleven tricks cold in his hand. He's probably hoping we contribute a couple tricks to the cause. On the other hand I don't think something like seven solid clubs and out is a 5♣ bid.

It is trickier because it'd be nice to bid something on a hand like ♣KQJTxxxx and an ace, but you have only eight tricks. Normally this is an easy 4♣ bid, but here you're playing this silly convention where you can't bid 4♣ naturally. I'd give a rough estimate of:

(1) If 4♣ is natural, it shows something like 7-8 tricks (5-6 loser). Then 5♣ is something like 9-10 tricks (3-4 loser), and with 11+ tricks you have to find some other sequence to look for slam (or just bid slam).

(2) With 4♣ artificial, you probably should now pass with 7 tricks. So 5♣ is something like 8-9 tricks (4-5 loser) and with 10+ tricks you have to find some other sequence. That's the price you pay for using the 4♣ convention.

Our hand will typically provide about 3 covers. Obviously opposite the "right hand" it can provide four (i.e. ♠Ax ♥Axx ♦x ♣KQJTxxx) but opposite the "wrong hand" we could be in more trouble (i.e. ♠Ax ♥x ♦xx ♣AQJxxxxx) and may even struggle to make eleven tricks.

Anyways, after all this, I concur with what seems to be the field decision -- pass 5♣, but if 4♣ would've been natural then it's worth a slam bid.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Dec 21 2007, 09:06 PM, said:

pclayton said:

  Foo, you are so full of crap...

Traditionally, a T/O X followed by the bid of a new suit shows a strong hand. Since Eric Kokish has been influencing Bidding Theory, it's been tending to show even stronger hands than it used to.

The auctions

(1♦) - X /
(1♦) - 2♠

are hardly equivalent to

(2♦) - X /
(2♦) - 3♠

Kokish's comments about takeout doubles have always been in the context of competition over one level opening bids. You shouldn't generalize these comments to competitive sequences over two level openings.

[jdonn]

I have said this before, and Richard said it above. "Don't preempt over preempts" does NOT mean "Don't jump over preempts". It means "Jumps over preempts show good hands, not preempts." I am amazed how often that slogan gets misused as support for "Don't jump over preempts" which is just pointless advice anyway.

Uday are you reading this? Remember a month or two back when Justin posted a plea to have some sort of appropriate standards for the Adv/Exp forum? Please save us...

Inquiry? Anyone?

[foo]

Actually, if ATT and playing 4C artificial you'll probably end up rolling slightly weaker hands into the X, then bid ♣'s catagory and slightly stronger hands into the immediate 5C bid catagory.

But I still do not think you'll be odds on for 6C with the OP Advancing hand if Overcaller has bid correctly.

[foo]

jdonn, on Dec 21 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

I have said this before, and Richard said it above. "Don't preempt over preempts" does NOT mean "Don't jump over preempts". It means "Jumps over preempts show good hands, not preempts." I am amazed how often that slogan gets misused as support for "Don't jump over preempts" which is just pointless advice anyway.

Uday are you reading this? Remember a month or two back when Justin posted a plea to have some sort of appropriate standards for the Adv/Exp forum? Please save us...

Let's be clear: are you trying to say that an immediate 5C bid with a single suited ♣ hand is better than any of
a= X, then bid ♣'s or
b= cuebid, then bid ♣'s or
c= X, then cuebid, then bid ♣'s
?
I highly doubt you are, but let's be clear.

Jumps over preempts are good hands in that they are Bids To Make. Not in that they are the strongest way to bid said hand shape.

Jumps over preempts remove partner from the bidding even more than the original preempt did. Do you disagree?

Therefore, jumps over preempts should be reserved for specific hand types that do not need or want much input from partner. Again, do you disagree?

Given the existence of 4 ways to bid a single suited ♣ hand playing these methods, and the direct jump to game is the =weakest= of them available to Us if playing these methods, what hands go into each catagory?

In short, IMHO people are not taking the full implications of the OP methods into account when they think the OP advancing hand should bid 6C here.

[jdonn]

foo, on Dec 21 2007, 01:49 PM, said:

Let's be clear: are you trying to say that an immediate 5C bid with a single suited ♣ hand is better than any of
a= X, then bid ♣'s

That doesn't show a better hand than this, it is just more flexible, which is another way of saying less oriented toward clubs. If I had to pick, the direct jump shows a better hand since this 4♣ bid is not even forcing.

Quote

b= cuebid, then bid ♣'s or

The cuebid shows the majors (michaels), then 5♣ is a control showing bid when partner bids a major.

Quote

c= X, then cuebid, then bid ♣'s

I play the double then cuebid is a raise of partner. So again 5♣ is a control showing bid.

So the attempted comparisons are moot, except with A which shows about the same strength as this but a different hand type. I don't know where you keep getting "in these methods" from, unless you just mean in your methods in which case I have no comment.

And yes I disagree that they remove partner from the bidding. They bring him into it by telling him to a very close degree what you have.