Just thought this was funny...
Partner opened 1♦, natural and normal strength range, but promising a stiff or void on the outside, or 6+ diamonds.
RHO overcalled 1NT.
Without showing y'all my hand (I want to retain some doubt as to whether I am wrong in the head), the actual result was very strange.
I doubled 1NT, which would have made 120. However, partner, with a 4144 12-count, corrected to 2♠ (?), and I declared 2NT, making an overtrick for +150.
Any theories???
As a clue, I did not have a trick source, at least not really.
Page 1 of 1
Wow does declaring matter!
#1
Posted 2007-November-01, 21:22
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#2
Posted 2007-November-01, 21:42
Sounds like RHO made a Zia-style 1N overcall and LHO had a void or something. Its hard to imagine a hand where they are cold for 120 and we are cold for 150.
"Phil" on BBO
#3
Posted 2007-November-01, 21:44
Were you actually cold for 3NT Ken or did they just mess up bigtime. The latter is nothing unusual so I suppose it is the former. No idea what your hand was.
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.
- hrothgar
- hrothgar
#4
Posted 2007-November-01, 22:08
Oh, I never said cold.
However, with no trick source, how can this be?
One suit offers almost no chance of more than one trick, another a remote chance of four tricks must almost assuredly only two, one a small chance of three tricks, and one almost no chance of more than one.
What actually happened was quite amazing.
With J98xx in hand opposite a small stiff, I would have elected fourth best and given the opponents an easy four tricks in this suit. Instead, I took three tricks in this suit as Declarer when they elected to lead this suit.
That reduced their tricks by two. They would have gained an additional trick from tempo because of my lead. I gained an additional trick from tempo because of their lead. So, there's your four-trick swing.
Still, how to take three tricks in this suit?? I'll give you a clue. The suit split about as evenly as it could, both as to suit length and as to honor distribution, and I used this suit early in the play to squeeze for information.
However, with no trick source, how can this be?
One suit offers almost no chance of more than one trick, another a remote chance of four tricks must almost assuredly only two, one a small chance of three tricks, and one almost no chance of more than one.
What actually happened was quite amazing.
With J98xx in hand opposite a small stiff, I would have elected fourth best and given the opponents an easy four tricks in this suit. Instead, I took three tricks in this suit as Declarer when they elected to lead this suit.
That reduced their tricks by two. They would have gained an additional trick from tempo because of my lead. I gained an additional trick from tempo because of their lead. So, there's your four-trick swing.
Still, how to take three tricks in this suit?? I'll give you a clue. The suit split about as evenly as it could, both as to suit length and as to honor distribution, and I used this suit early in the play to squeeze for information.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
Page 1 of 1

Help
