I ain't criticising your partner, just pointing that IMO you shouldn't suffer from your decision, since the hand you expected could never resemble the actual one.
Some one made a mistake and let you play in a Jimmy Cayne match
#21
Posted 2008-March-23, 18:25
Sure, I am the nly one who posts problems to criticise my partners
(just joking)
I ain't criticising your partner, just pointing that IMO you shouldn't suffer from your decision, since the hand you expected could never resemble the actual one.
I ain't criticising your partner, just pointing that IMO you shouldn't suffer from your decision, since the hand you expected could never resemble the actual one.
#22
Posted 2008-March-25, 07:02
While on one hand you shouldn't theoretically pre-empt over a pre-empt according to text-books, on the other hand, what else would it be except shapely and fairly weak (else cue first or keep 3N in the picture). The vulnerability does go against that theory though, but I'm still betting on extra shape rather than extra strength.
On the poll above, I elected against science and decided on a middle of the road 5♦ bid.
On the poll above, I elected against science and decided on a middle of the road 5♦ bid.
The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.
#23
Posted 2008-March-25, 14:49
P has to have diamond length and some values somewhere, and isn't interested in 3NT. P is too good for a 3♦ competitive call, but not good enough for a 3♠ call showing strength and a ♦ fit. Maybe he has a club card and some length, along with ♦? I just don't see what P is supposed to do after I bid either 4♥ or 4♠, and 4NT could be passed as natural.
5 ♦ is a safe and pragmatic choice, but we need very little from P to have a good play for 6♦, so I am just bidding what I think I can make.
5 ♦ is a safe and pragmatic choice, but we need very little from P to have a good play for 6♦, so I am just bidding what I think I can make.

Help
