BBO Discussion Forums: LM Pairs - Day 1 - Hand 3 - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

LM Pairs - Day 1 - Hand 3 How hard will you drive?

#1 User is offline   Echognome 

  • Deipnosophist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,386
  • Joined: 2005-March-22

Posted 2008-July-19, 12:31

Scoring: MP

(P) - 1♣ - (1♦) - 1♠
(P) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♦
(P) - 2♠ - (P) - ?


You pick up this very powerful hand and to your surprise partner opens the bidding. How do you plan to bid from here?

Side question: How forcing is 2♦?
"Half the people you know are below average." - Steven Wright
0

#2 User is offline   matmat 

  • ded
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,459
  • Joined: 2005-August-11
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2008-July-19, 12:33

i think 2♦ is a 1RF
I cue 3d and await developments.
0

#3 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2008-July-19, 14:31

I think 2♦ is game-forcing, because it makes a nice simple rule. I bid 3♠, with a meaningful look.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#4 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2008-July-20, 03:18

I would bid 3♠.

For me 2♦ is a one round force only. (I could pass 2♥, 2♠, 2NT or 3♣ after bidding 2♦.) But the combination 2♦+3♠ is clearly GF (After all, 3♠ without 2♦ already shows a good invitational hand as 2♠ (without 2♦) would have shown more than a minimum).

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
0

#5 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2008-July-20, 04:02

Trinidad, on Jul 20 2008, 10:18 AM, said:

For me 2♦ is a one round force only. (I could pass 2♥, 2♠, 2NT or 3♣ after bidding 2♦.) But the combination 2♦+3♠ is clearly GF (After all, 3♠ without 2♦ already shows a good invitational hand as 2♠ (without 2♦) would have shown more than a minimum).

Is 3♠ clearly non-forcing? Since you bid 2♦ you have the new information that partner has something in spades. With invitational values and ♠AQJ10x or ♠QJxxxx, you wouldn't have bid 3♠ over 2♣, but you might well want to now.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#6 User is offline   marcD 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: 2006-August-07

Posted 2008-July-20, 04:09

I guess one way to find out whether 3♠ is forcing is bidding it. Will not take the chance, so will protect partner with 3♦. Not 100% clear to me 3♠ now should be forcing and possibly even less so to partner .
0

#7 User is online   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 18,366
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-July-20, 04:19

Echognome, on Jul 19 2008, 01:31 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

(P) - 1♣ - (1♦) - 1♠
(P) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♦
(P) - 2♠ - (P) - ?


You pick up this very powerful hand and to your surprise partner opens the bidding. How do you plan to bid from here?

Side question: How forcing is 2♦?

not sure but I hope 3d is forcing now :(
0

#8 User is offline   andy_h 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,962
  • Joined: 2007-September-14
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:The Universe, Traveling, Squash, and Scandinavia.

Posted 2008-July-20, 11:25

gnasher, on Jul 20 2008, 06:31 AM, said:

I think 2♦ is game-forcing, because it makes a nice simple rule. I bid 3♠, with a meaningful look.

me too
- Andy -

We are all connected to each other biologically, to the Earth chemically, and to the rest of the universe atomically.
We're in the universe, and the universe is in us.
0

#9 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2008-July-20, 12:16

gnasher, on Jul 20 2008, 05:02 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Jul 20 2008, 10:18 AM, said:

For me 2♦ is a one round force only. (I could pass 2♥, 2♠, 2NT or 3♣ after bidding 2♦.) But the combination 2♦+3♠ is clearly GF (After all, 3♠ without 2♦ already shows a good invitational hand as 2♠ (without 2♦) would have shown more than a minimum).

Is 3♠ clearly non-forcing? Since you bid 2♦ you have the new information that partner has something in spades. With invitational values and ♠AQJ10x or ♠QJxxxx, you wouldn't have bid 3♠ over 2♣, but you might well want to now.

I assume you mean: "Is 3♠ -after 2♦- clearly game forcing?"

If you play 2♦ as a 1 round force, it shows at least invitational values. That means that you can bid 2♦ with an invitational hand with 5 spades. You can subsequently pass 2♠, since 2♠ shows a minimum in context. With a nice 14 point hand and 3 spades, partner wouldn't rebid 2♠, since it wouldn't be forcing.

That means that if you take another bid, after opener's 2♠ (which showed a minimum), you are stronger than invitational and, therefore, game forcing.

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
0

#10 User is offline   HeavyDluxe 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 297
  • Joined: 2005-June-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Windsor, VT

Posted 2008-July-20, 12:40

2♦ should be game force. So, I'm bidding 3♠.

3♦, mentioned above, sounds fancy... But to my novice ears, a little too fancy.
0

#11 User is offline   benlessard 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,465
  • Joined: 2006-January-07
  • Location:Montreal Canada
  • Interests:All games. i really mean all of them.

Posted 2008-July-21, 23:29

2S show a minimum with 2 trumps so 3S has to be forcing but my bid is 3D.
From Psych "I mean, Gus and I never see eye-to-eye on work stuff.
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."
0

#12 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,520
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-July-21, 23:32

I would bid 3♠ here.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0
Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users