Hog the contract, or not?
#1
Posted 2007-October-28, 13:23
(2♥)-2♠-(3♥)-3N
(Pass)-?
KJT974
4
KQ975
9
#2
Posted 2007-October-28, 13:47
Even if we'd have bid 4♦ over 2♥ with a big 5+/5+ ♠/♦ hand, surely 4♦ is forcing and we really have no business inviting a high-level diamond contract. 4♠ is the other obvious choice, and I just don't like it.. it is a ten trick contract where partner's club suit may be of no real help. It might work, but this is a case of '3N ends (almost) all auctions'. If I held KJ109xx x AKxx xx, as an example, then I'd bid 4♠.
#3
Posted 2007-October-28, 13:57
It's what I'd do. Can I ignore the fact that I have a very distributional hand.
#4
Posted 2007-October-28, 14:06
I'm not comfortable pulling this, neither to 4♦ nor 4♠.
4♦ is surely forcing, and I don't think Ï can underwrite forcing to 4♠/5+♦.
We can easily have 4 top losers in a ♠ contract and 3 in a ♦ contract and have 9 quick tricks in NT. Nothing is certain, but I think we stand a better chance in 3NT than the alternatives.
Harald
#5 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2007-October-28, 15:04
#6
Posted 2007-October-28, 15:29
It is not unreasonable on this auction that partner has 3 bullets and some diamonds. In that case, 6♦ could be a claim.
Aside from that, it is not unlikely that game in one of my suits is cold and 3NT could go down.
One could construct a lie of the cards where 3NT is the only making game, but it would be hard.
#9
Posted 2007-October-28, 16:28
#10
Posted 2007-October-28, 17:05
If partner bid 3nt on a running club suit...I may not like this.
#11
Posted 2007-October-29, 02:06
I doubt that pd has just a stopper and a running club suit. He can bid 3 Club with that. So he has a semibalanced hand with no spade support, but if he is not 1426, my hand will often play better in a suit then in NT.
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#12
Posted 2007-October-29, 02:09
Q
AQx
Jxxx
KJxxx
Got a spade lead, hearts back (declarer stepped up), on the diamond preemptor stepped up and played a ♣ through to his partner's ace, ♥ back. -400.
Somehow our teammates collected 1700 so we won the match anyway. Not sure if 4♠ would have made, they might get a ♦ ruff.
Btw, I'm curious about those who voted that 2♠ was too revolting. I thought it was a wtp bid.
#13
Posted 2007-October-29, 11:08
We are all connected to each other biologically, to the Earth chemically, and to the rest of the universe atomically.
We're in the universe, and the universe is in us.
#14
Posted 2007-October-29, 11:51
#15
Posted 2007-October-29, 12:02
In other words when partner has not promised a big hand, it seems making vul freebids and on top of that another freebid in a new suit at the 4 level would show more?
#16
Posted 2007-October-29, 12:16
helene_t, on Oct 29 2007, 09:09 AM, said:
I thought if you are going to bid 2♠ you need to explain why you prefer it to 4♦, on the assumption that everyone ought to be playing Leaping Michaels here.
-- Bertrand Russell
#17
Posted 2007-October-29, 12:20
Anyway I'm not sure if this hand is good enough for LM.
#19
Posted 2007-October-29, 12:24
#20
Posted 2007-October-29, 12:36

Help
