To game or not to game...
#1 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-March-05, 18:47
xxx AQxx Ax AJxx. Imps none vul.
RHO opens 1D, you X, LHO bids 3D, partner bids 3H, pass, to you. Do you kick it in? How close is this decision?
#2
Posted 2008-March-05, 18:54
Have no idea if 4♥ will make or not, but I would always bid this without thinking, so not sure if that means it is close or a WTP.
#3
Posted 2008-March-05, 18:56
Kxx Kxxxx xx Qxx. Thanks we are high enough.
Axx KJxx xx Qxxx. Nope
xxx Kxxxx xx KQx. This is the best hand I think I can come up with, but it's very specific.
The critical card on these layouts seems the be the club 10. It makes a big difference.
I've convinced myself I'm high enough.
#4
Posted 2008-March-05, 19:18
1) It is certainly possible that LHO has four spades. I'd choose to preempt on a lot of hands that are 4-5 with bad spades. But I agree it is fair to assume that partner likely has exactly 3 spades.
2) Limiting partner to 8 points is sort of pessimistic. If you double aggressively, partner may choose to bid only 3♥ on hands which are up to 10 points, expecting you to raise to 4♥ with hands like this.
3) Club/heart finesses, if needed, are likely on.
That said, I don't think this is particularly obvious, and I could be easily convinced that the probability of losing 3 spades + another trick is too high.
#5
Posted 2008-March-05, 19:20
#6
Posted 2008-March-05, 19:22
- hrothgar
#7
Posted 2008-March-05, 19:47
8 seems like a good midpoint, since I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of 7's or primo 6's across the table.
#8
Posted 2008-March-05, 20:23
-P.J. Painter.
#9
Posted 2008-March-05, 20:45
Not vul, it is closer, a lot closer. I think at the table i would have bid 4♥ on "auto". Upon reflection, it should not be automatic. Partner's 3♥ bid could have been under pressure and just competitive. Pass is probably the winner more often than not. So upon reflection, I am thinking pass will be best. Bid too often with hands like this, and parnter might learn not to compete on lightish fitting hands.
#10
Posted 2008-March-05, 20:49
kenrexford, on Mar 5 2008, 09:23 PM, said:
Apart from the fact that 1NT is a fairly ugly bid with Ax diamond when you have a perfectly good takeout double instead, it doesn't always solve your problem:
1♦-1NT-3♦-P
P-?
OK, if you make a game partner should be able to act over 3♦.
But now you have to pass 3♦ and risk scoring -110 when you could score +140.
#11
Posted 2008-March-05, 20:50
#12
Posted 2008-March-05, 20:57
655321, on Mar 5 2008, 09:49 PM, said:
kenrexford, on Mar 5 2008, 09:23 PM, said:
Apart from the fact that 1NT is a fairly ugly bid with Ax diamond when you have a perfectly good takeout double instead, it doesn't always solve your problem:
1♦-1NT-3♦-P
P-?
OK, if you make a game partner should be able to act over 3♦.
But now you have to pass 3♦ and risk scoring -110 when you could score +140.
It is allowed to go 1♦-1NT-3♦-X-P-3♥.
-P.J. Painter.
#13
Posted 2008-March-05, 21:10
kenrexford, on Mar 5 2008, 09:57 PM, said:
655321, on Mar 5 2008, 09:49 PM, said:
kenrexford, on Mar 5 2008, 09:23 PM, said:
Apart from the fact that 1NT is a fairly ugly bid with Ax diamond when you have a perfectly good takeout double instead, it doesn't always solve your problem:
1♦-1NT-3♦-P
P-?
OK, if you make a game partner should be able to act over 3♦.
But now you have to pass 3♦ and risk scoring -110 when you could score +140.
It is allowed to go 1♦-1NT-3♦-X-P-3♥.
Fair point, although having heard about your hearts, partner will now bid 4♥ on many of the hands that bid 3♥ on the original auction - e.g. on all of pclaytons hands.
#14
Posted 2008-March-05, 22:14
Not facing a passed hand i guess its also 4H. Partner bid 3H expecting to make it a fair amount of times, at first i thought holding 2D was a big minus, but since partner probably got 2D hes guessing that ive got probably 2 and decided to bid 3H anyway i assume i can bid 4.
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
#15
Posted 2008-March-06, 01:43
#16
Posted 2008-March-06, 01:54
4 ♥ vul. or while on fire.
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#18
Posted 2008-March-06, 02:58
#19
Posted 2008-March-06, 08:40
#20
Posted 2008-March-06, 13:07
Harald

Help
