[pclayton]

cherdano, on Oct 30 2008, 10:18 PM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 30 2008, 08:36 PM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 30 2008, 09:12 AM, said:

What do you think 3♣ shows? Are you seriously rerebidding clubs with Qxxxxx? Or 3♣ instead of 2♥ when you have ♥AJ and ♣KQxxxx? Or 3♣ instead of 2♠ with ♠Kxx and ♣QJxxxx?
I mean, rebidding 2♣ with these hands is ugly, but you have to do it, but 3♣???

Arend, the point of these hands isn't to show what a 3♣ call is supposed to look like, it supposed to demonstrate that even opposite many sub-miumums that game is still something we want to bid.

Phil, please re-read what you just wrote. Paraphrased, you just said "these examples were not meant to have anything to do with the auction, they were just meant to prove that I am right'.

???You can 'paraphrase' this anyway you want Arend.

HTF do we know who's "right" here anyway LOL. We haven't even seen the other hand.

[TimG]

pclayton, on Oct 31 2008, 10:27 AM, said:

HTF do we know who's "right" here anyway LOL. We haven't even seen the other hand.

In my opinion, seeing the other hand will not prove anyone right; it is enough to know that we have established a forcing auction, so we cannot pass 3♣ whether or not it worked out on this particular hand.

[TimG]

What was the result here. I understand it was bidding practice, but I'm still curious about the "under bidding".

[rogerclee]

TimG, on Nov 2 2008, 07:28 PM, said:

What was the result here.  I understand it was bidding practice, but I'm still curious about the "under bidding".

The result was that I made fun of Han, but stopping in 3♣ seems right on the actual set of hands. I forgot what I actually held, sorry, but I was 3-7 in the blacks.

[han]

If you want to hear the real story you can pm me. I don't want to embarrass clee in public.