Passed hand bidding 3rd seat
#1
Posted 2007-December-28, 21:03
p - p - ? whats your bid holding:
♠ Q T 9 6 3
♥T x x
♦Q J x
♣x x
pass?
1♠?
2♠?
Other?
#2 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2007-December-28, 21:18
#3
Posted 2007-December-28, 21:44
#4
Posted 2007-December-28, 23:26
If this were IMP pairs (XIMPs), then 2S is not unreasonable.
#5
Posted 2007-December-28, 23:29
If the opponents bid merrily to game and partner doubles without real tricks because he expects general strength from me (meaning opponents are nuts), I'll get a new partner.
But of course I'd pass anyway
#6
Posted 2007-December-28, 23:50
However, vs established pairs, I really doubt that it is positive expectancy to bid 2♠ here even White vs Red. If they play lebensohl, they don't have that much guesswork after their takeout double. Other times PD may sac 4♠ and we go down too much. I'm not even sure that we want a ♠ lead here.
There are also times, LHO was going to open 1♠ and good opps nail us for 800 or more when they have no slam.
Still 2♠ can work wonderfully when PD fits and we get in a 4♠ bid and the opps get set in 5 or miss a cold slam stopping in 5 or we go down only 300 vs their game.
All things considered I pass here but make my ♠ suit QJTxx rather than QT9xx and I'll venture 2♠ at these colors.
#8
Posted 2007-December-29, 00:05
P-P-1♠-2♦-3♦
P-P-1♠-2♥-X
P-P-1♠-1NT-X
Opening 2♠ on the other hand, only really backfires when the opponents find a way to penalty double and it goes for a number. Obviously sometimes this happens... but in exchange we fairly often get opponents to miss a slam or bid an inferior game.
Normally I'd pass this hand in 3rd seat, but if I was losing a match or otherwise needed a swing, I think opening 2♠ is okay. With the ♠J added I would probably open 2♠.
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#9
Posted 2007-December-29, 00:59
You could try 1♠, it might work.
If you want to be a comedian, opening a strong NT can also work.
#10
Posted 2007-December-29, 05:06
If I bid, it is 2S, but my partner knows that
a weak two in this position aat this vulnerability
could be based on such a hand.
Playing with a stranger, I would pass.
With kind regards
Marlowe
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#11
Posted 2007-December-29, 05:16
I would open 2♠. (If playing normal weak and having agreed with partner that this can deviate in this position, I also open 2♠).
Note that where I play only a couple of opps are experts. I'll be more reluctant to open 2♠ against them, but I still do it.
#12
Posted 2007-December-29, 05:18
ArtK78, on Dec 29 2007, 07:26 AM, said:
If this were IMP pairs (XIMPs), then 2S is not unreasonable.
Why is this different?
#13
Posted 2007-December-29, 07:49
ArtK78, on Dec 29 2007, 05:26 AM, said:
I hope I get to play a lot vs you.
2♠.
#14
Posted 2007-December-29, 10:12
#15
Posted 2007-December-29, 10:33
#16
Posted 2007-December-29, 10:37
kgr, on Dec 29 2007, 06:18 AM, said:
ArtK78, on Dec 29 2007, 07:26 AM, said:
If this were IMP pairs (XIMPs), then 2S is not unreasonable.
Why is this different?
Why is this different?
In a real team game, if you happen to run into a buzzsaw (LHO has AKJ8xx of spades and RHO reopens with a double) you could lose the match on this one hand. This is especially true when you expect to win the match through sound play (your team is the better team).
If you are playing IMP pairs, you have to take some chances to beat all of the other pairs (not just one team) so the risk/reward situation is much different. If you get creamed, then that is the way it goes. At least there is an upside where you could increase your chances of winning the event.
#17
Posted 2007-December-29, 10:41
whereagles, on Dec 29 2007, 08:49 AM, said:
ArtK78, on Dec 29 2007, 05:26 AM, said:
I hope I get to play a lot vs you.
2♠.
I hope so, too.
Don't get me wrong. I open these kinds of hands 2♠ at pairs all the time. But in a real team game, especially in a long match, one or two disasters caused by opening this type of hand could cost you the match. And the upside of opening this hand 2♠ in a long match doesn't justify the risk (especially if you expect to win the match through sound play or if you believe that you are winning the match).
#18
Posted 2007-December-29, 13:05
lexlogan, on Dec 29 2007, 08:12 AM, said:
Disagree. The opponents have a lock game and a possible slam. We have taken away the 1 level. LHO has a very strong hand (15+) and will probably have to double initially to show values. If pard sticks in a raise, they will start their investigations at a high level.
#19
Posted 2007-December-29, 13:23
pclayton, on Dec 29 2007, 02:05 PM, said:
lexlogan, on Dec 29 2007, 08:12 AM, said:
Disagree. The opponents have a lock game and a possible slam. We have taken away the 1 level. LHO has a very strong hand (15+) and will probably have to double initially to show values. If pard sticks in a raise, they will start their investigations at a high level.
I think their investigation in that case will be along the lines of what to lead to collect their 1100.
#20
Posted 2007-December-29, 13:30
jdonn, on Dec 29 2007, 11:23 AM, said:
pclayton, on Dec 29 2007, 02:05 PM, said:
lexlogan, on Dec 29 2007, 08:12 AM, said:
Disagree. The opponents have a lock game and a possible slam. We have taken away the 1 level. LHO has a very strong hand (15+) and will probably have to double initially to show values. If pard sticks in a raise, they will start their investigations at a high level.
I think their investigation in that case will be along the lines of what to lead to collect their 1100.
Against their slam? Cool. Win 8.

Help
