Help
Red/Red, imps, against excellent opponents in a weak field
You open 1NT on
K3 J63 A4 AKT753
This is not up for debate. this is what you opened, if you want to argue about it, then just imagine p has convinced you that you will open 1NT on these hands and you are going along with it.
Anyway. you and p go through an invitational sequence:
1NT - 2♣
2♦ - 2N(*)
(*) 2♣ might not promise a 4 card major, invitational values.
What are your views on your next call?
Page 1 of 1
How good is your hand?
#1
- ded
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,459
- Joined: 2005-August-11
- Gender:Not Telling
Posted 2008-April-19, 15:01
#2
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2008-April-19, 15:13
3NT is beyond automatic. Even if 3♣ was forcing the last thing you want to do is help them lead or defend in any way.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#3
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 885
- Joined: 2007-March-28
Posted 2008-April-19, 15:29
It looks like a hand where you make alot of tricks or go down alot. 3NT for me.
Ming
--Always remember you're unique. Just like everyone else.
--Always remember you're unique. Just like everyone else.
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,214
- Joined: 2007-December-16
- Location:Pasadena, CA
Posted 2008-April-19, 15:40
I'd 3N on less.
#5
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2008-April-20, 00:21
Interesting carrot-dangling question.
♠AQJx ♥x ♦xxxx ♣Qxxx?
How about more mundane?
♠Axxx ♥x ♦Kxxx ♣Qxxx?
♠Axx ♥x ♦Kxxxx ♣xxxx?
Heck -- even ♠Axxx ♥x ♦Kxxxx ♣xxx has play.
This makes me think. It seems potentially useful to employ a technique of checking on matters further if slam is easily possible.
One process:
O: 3♣ (natural)
R: 3♦ (diamond control for notrump)
O: 3♠ (spade control for notrump -- heart weakness)
R: 4♥ (no heart control for notrump, but I have shortness and a nice fit)
Downside here might be losing the zoom effect.
An alternative might be that 3♣ is a natural call, with Responder expected to bid 3NT. However, Responder could "super-accept" clubs by bidding a short suit. Same for 3♦, which expresses interest in some major shortness. Three of the cheapest unbid major (the other major if Opener had bid one) expresses diamonds and interest in a club stiff (an "Auto Empathetic Splinter," if you will). This approach allows a check without giving up anything substantial (you dissuade the opponents from the extremely unlikely lead of your long minor).
Interesting...
♠AQJx ♥x ♦xxxx ♣Qxxx?
How about more mundane?
♠Axxx ♥x ♦Kxxx ♣Qxxx?
♠Axx ♥x ♦Kxxxx ♣xxxx?
Heck -- even ♠Axxx ♥x ♦Kxxxx ♣xxx has play.
This makes me think. It seems potentially useful to employ a technique of checking on matters further if slam is easily possible.
One process:
O: 3♣ (natural)
R: 3♦ (diamond control for notrump)
O: 3♠ (spade control for notrump -- heart weakness)
R: 4♥ (no heart control for notrump, but I have shortness and a nice fit)
Downside here might be losing the zoom effect.
An alternative might be that 3♣ is a natural call, with Responder expected to bid 3NT. However, Responder could "super-accept" clubs by bidding a short suit. Same for 3♦, which expresses interest in some major shortness. Three of the cheapest unbid major (the other major if Opener had bid one) expresses diamonds and interest in a club stiff (an "Auto Empathetic Splinter," if you will). This approach allows a check without giving up anything substantial (you dissuade the opponents from the extremely unlikely lead of your long minor).
Interesting...
"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.
#6
- ded
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,459
- Joined: 2005-August-11
- Gender:Not Telling
Posted 2008-April-20, 00:28
kenrexford, on Apr 20 2008, 01:21 AM, said:
Interesting carrot-dangling question.
yes, yes.... but did you vote for the correct option?
#7
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2008-April-20, 00:43
matmat, on Apr 20 2008, 01:28 AM, said:
kenrexford, on Apr 20 2008, 01:21 AM, said:
Interesting carrot-dangling question.
yes, yes.... but did you vote for the correct option?
Of course. LOL
"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.
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,380
- Joined: 2003-September-24
Posted 2008-April-20, 03:47
jdonn, on Apr 19 2008, 04:13 PM, said:
3NT is beyond automatic. Even if 3♣ was forcing the last thing you want to do is help them lead or defend in any way.
My feelings as well. I hope we do not miss 6C due to our off shape 1N opening.
#9
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2008-April-20, 05:48
This raises an interesting problem more generally.
The usual approach to responding to 1NT has a weakness as to distinguishing hand types for invitational hands. If a 4-4 major fit can be found, or if Responder has a five-card or longer major, great! Maybe even a long minor can be handled.
But, unbalanced versus balanced with a minor focus of some sort is difficult.
The usual approach to responding to 1NT has a weakness as to distinguishing hand types for invitational hands. If a 4-4 major fit can be found, or if Responder has a five-card or longer major, great! Maybe even a long minor can be handled.
But, unbalanced versus balanced with a minor focus of some sort is difficult.
"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.
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,568
- Joined: 2006-June-28
- Gender:Male
- Location:Barrington IL USA
- Interests:Backgammon, Bridge, Hockey
Posted 2008-April-20, 11:21
I bid a quick 3NT and give no info to the defence who may lead and defend differently once I have a running/near running ♣ suit.
Yes there may be times when 5♣ is cold and 3NT set, but the reverse is also true. I do hope PD doesn't have the magic hand where slam is missed.
Yes there may be times when 5♣ is cold and 3NT set, but the reverse is also true. I do hope PD doesn't have the magic hand where slam is missed.
Page 1 of 1