[helene_t]

I voted pass. 2♥ is a sound raise opposite a 1st/2nd seat opening but oppsosite a 3rd seat opening you have drury and you don't have forcing 1NT. Besides, the silence of the opps suggests that partner has vasted values in spades.

In real life I would probably have made some kind of game try, but I don't know what kind of trials we play. And pass is more reasonable than 4♥, I think.

[Gerben42]

I bid a long suit try in ♣ (3♣) but would much rather have preferred a short suit try in ♠ if available.

[Blofeld]

I pass, though I'm tempted by 3♣. But I think the three-level will be too much more often than the game makes.

[badderzboy]

Hmm I went for 3♦ as a long suit game try, I'm not as worried about ♣ as I have may have only 2 losers there but I hate my ♦s where I may lose 3 off the bounce.

Saying that I rarely use Long Suit trys so not that familiar.

Could someone explain why here that 3♣ is more appropriate?

Thanks

Steve

[whereagles]

Pass. Pard didn't bid Drury, so I can hardly believe we make 4♥ here. The risks in 3♥ do not compensate finding pard with the miracle matching hand.

[inquiry]

This hand was also from the Gov BI Cup quarter finals 1A between Poland playing Chinese Taipai. I choose this hand because of the difference of opinion between the two expert partnerships when holding this hand (true they could well have been playing different systems)... The polish expert holding this hand (Jagniewski) choose a "careful" pass over the raise to 2♥. The Chinese Taipai expert (Chen went with the game try -- obviously help suit) game try of 3♦, and ended up quickly in a hopeless (as the cards lay) 4♥ contract.

In the quaterfinals 1B, between Sweden and Indonesia Open, the star for Team Indonesia (Panelewen) choose to bid 3♣ as a game try, and ended up in 3♥ down one. While his counterpart (Sundelin for Sweden) simply leaped to 4♥.

At the time, there was some discussion of if Drury was used or not at the Taipai table. Turns out most of "responders" values where in spades (he had KJx) so short suit game try would have worked out well here (for those wanting two way game tries after 1M-2M. On the actual hand, even 3♥ is too high (two club ruffs, and three aces to lose). Still the drury/no drury question made it worth considering. It was also interesting that all four experts choose a different bid with the same "basic" auction. Thus, I thought this would be a good hand for an open discussion (Although I am not sure we will learn a lot from this one hand).

I have to admit to liking the pass option, but maybe I rely too heavily upon drury, which makes P=1M=2M show little more than 13 cards and three card support.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Sep 21 2005, 04:03 PM, said:

This hand was also from the Gov BI Cup quarter finals 1A between Poland playing Chinese Taipai. I choose this hand because of the difference of opinion between the two expert partnerships when holding this hand (true they could well have been playing different systems)... The polish expert holding this hand (Jagniewski) choose a "careful" pass over the raise to 2♥. The Chinese Taipai expert (Chen went with the game try -- obviously help suit) game try of 3♦, and ended up quickly in a hopeless (as the cards lay) 4♥ contract.

In the quaterfinals 1B, between Sweden and Indonesia Open, the star for Team Indonesia (Panelewen) choose to bid 3♣ as a game try, and ended up in 3♥ down one. While his counterpart (Sundelin for Sweden) simply leaped to 4♥.

At the time, there was some discussion of if Drury was used or not at the Taipai table. Turns out most of "responders" values where in spades (he had KJx) so short suit game try would have worked out well here (for those wanting two way game tries after 1M-2M. On the actual hand, even 3♥ is too high (two club ruffs, and three aces to lose). Still the drury/no drury question made it worth considering. It was also interesting that all four experts choose a different bid with the same "basic" auction. Thus, I thought this would be a good hand for an open discussion (Although I am not sure we will learn a lot from this one hand).

I have to admit to liking the pass option, but maybe I rely too heavily upon drury, which makes P=1M=2M show little more than 13 cards and three card support.

It would be interesting to see the complete hand.
In particular, do the opponents have a Spade partial?

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Sep 21 2005, 09:12 AM, said:

It would be interesting to see the complete hand.
In particular, do the opponents have a Spade partial?

GOV BI Cup Quarter Finals 1B the hand was the board 13.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Sep 21 2005, 04:26 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Sep 21 2005, 09:12 AM, said:

It would be interesting to see the complete hand.
In particular, do the opponents have a Spade partial?

GOV BI Cup Quarter Finals 1B the hand was the board 13.

East-West do have an 8 card Spade fit. 2 Spades certainly has chances.

Its unclear whether West would necessarly chose to balance if 2♥ gets passed arround to him. However, we can't simply assume that pass will permit us to make +110 and bidding results in - 100

As I noted originally, the hand is worth a game invite. However, I'm not bidding 3♣ because I expect to make game.

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Sep 21 2005, 09:48 AM, said:

inquiry, on Sep 21 2005, 04:26 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Sep 21 2005, 09:12 AM, said:

It would be interesting to see the complete hand.
In particular, do the opponents have a Spade partial?

GOV BI Cup Quarter Finals 1B the hand was the board 13.

East-West do have an 8 card Spade fit. 2 Spades certainly has chances.

Its unclear whether West would necessarly chose to balance if 2♥ gets passed arround to him. However, we can't simply assume that pass will permit us to make +110 and bidding results in - 100

As I noted originally, the hand is worth a game invite. However, I'm not bidding 3♣ because I expect to make game.

As noted before, we are not here to "result" the hand. But rather to find the right bid. Of course the potential for them to make 2♠ might influence your bid, but then you have the 1H=2H=3H bid available as well. I suspect 3♣ will garner a lot of support from the experts. And as noted, since we will count the bids from the actual event...we already have FOUR different bids in the result. :-)

[cherdano]

inquiry, on Sep 21 2005, 03:03 PM, said:

I have to admit to liking the pass option, but maybe I rely too heavily upon drury, which makes P=1M=2M show little more than 13 cards and three card support.

I don't know about "too much" but I am pretty sure that given your 1st/2nd seat drury, the upper limit for 1M-2M in your style is a lot lower than for most other people (even those who do have 2♣ as a multi-way bid, including a 3-card invite in the major). Probably the same is true with a passed hand with your style vs standard drury.

Arend

[Walddk]

Half an hour ago I had a post here as a reply to Ben's question about the Sundelin-Sylvan system (Drury or not). I can't find it any more, nor can I find Ben's question. Have they been deleted, and if so, why?

Roland

[Walddk]

Sorry, I posted it in another thread although it seems to belong here.

Roland

[Double !]

I believe that I elected to Pass (albeit with increasing trepidation as I read everyone's postings). My thinking, right or wrong, was influenced a lot by the fact that the opps, so far, hadn't bid spades (if only as a lead-director) leading me to suspect that P might well have a totally worthless spade honor and that even the 3-level might not be safe. Oh, well, another missed vul game at imps for me (and zero points), but at least I rate to get a plus score

[Al_U_Card]

Since pard did NOT bid 1S, his values (such as they may be) are in your suits. I would happily bid 3C as a long suit game try and expect to make opposite a decent 8 count that would accept.

[Double !]

IMO, pard should not respond 1 spade with heart support as a passed hand because it isn't forcing. 3rd seat opener is permitted to pass 1 spade. So, I don't believe that I can take the inference that you suggest.

[Al_U_Card]

Double !, on Sep 21 2005, 03:25 PM, said:

IMO, pard should not respond 1 spade with heart support as a passed hand because it isn't forcing. 3rd seat opener is permitted to pass 1 spade. So, I don't believe that I can take the inference that you suggest.

Sometimes, when he has four, he will bid them to forestall the opps eventual balance in Spades......and to warn you against hoping he has his cards in your suits.

[mikeh]

I passed, and none of the comments supporting bidding persuades me.

It seems that most of the bidders were not really trying for game: they were more concerned with preventing the opps from balancing in ♠

1. There is a good chance that 2♥ will be passed out. LHO couldn't bid 1♠, and this is not matchpoints. The silence of the opps suggests that partner has some stuff in ♠.

2. Partner may be sitting there with KJ109 of ♠ or better and be about to clobber them: you have enough defence to be very happy to defend if he doubles.
He should NOT bid 1♠ with the correct values for 2♥. He should NOT be thinking about a lead-director against silent opps after your 1♥ bid. Presumably his lead director is intended to be useful against a minor suit contract. 2♥ might not be a lead director, but it is far, far more likely to make such a lead directing bid irrelevant: the opps have passed and they are going to balance, at imps, at the 3-level? Get a grip on reality, folks . It may happen, but should you and your partner plan your constructive auctions around that ?

3. You can still bid if they balance and partner passes.

4. You are not allowed to make your game try with a signal 'just kidding'. Partner will take you seriously and put you in game on many, many hands on which you fail.

5. Partner may actually hold a poor hand, and 3♥ fails.

I appreciate that the tactical aspects of bidding are sometimes overlooked, but bidding here demonstrates the opposite approach. You should not change your constructive sequences out of fear that the so-far silent opps not only can do something that works, but actually will do something that works