BBO Discussion Forums: a complete balls up - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

a complete balls up

#1 User is offline   sceptic 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,343
  • Joined: 2004-January-03

Posted 2007-September-01, 15:21


Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  3NT   Pass
 Pass  Pass  



Ok, I lead a low club , my pard thinks I should lead from the top, I was convinced that oppos had diamonds, so with my holding I knew a very good chance I get back in with clubs and maybe run them

I have never come across a gambling with a major suit before

what do you think of it all
0

#2 User is offline   ralph23 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 2007-July-11

Posted 2007-September-01, 15:32

We actually play a version of Gambling that allows the 3nt artificial opening with a good major suit like this ♠ suit, but opener must have some major stuff outside the trump suit; this hand would not qualify. (We play a quasi Namyats method but that's neither here nor there.... they were imho just confused about Gambling....)

You know something is fishy though, when you see the QJx of ♦ in your hand; opener can't have a solid 7-8 card running suit.

I would have inquired about the partnership meaning of 3nt. They probably didn't have one and opener was confused about the bid.

The "book" defense to Gambling 3nt is, if you have an Ace, lead it and get a signal from partner. They are apt to take their tricks once they get the lead.

Anyway .... if you thought declarer had ♦ suit, and you hold QJx in that suit, why not just clear the clubs from the opening lead and wait to get back in with your diamond Queen? THis will work unless dummy has 4♣ to the Queen, won't it, which is a bit unlikely..... and if dummy has 3♣ to the Queen, you will regret not having cleared the suit on the get-go!!

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-September-01, 15:37

♣♦♥♠ Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that other philosophers are all jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself. H.L. Mencken. ♣♦♥♠
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users