Help
XIMPs, none vul, partner deals, you have ♠Qx, ♥x, ♦QJ9xx, ♣QJTxx
Part 1: 1♥-(2♠)-?
Part 2: Regardless of what you do in part 1, it goes 1♥-(2♠)-?-(3♠); 4♥-(4♠)-?
Page 1 of 1
two-parter
#1
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 612
- Joined: 2007-December-31
- Location:Bethesda, Maryland, USA
Posted 2009-February-11, 23:50
"It is not enough to be a good player. You must also play well." -- Tarrasch
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,727
- Joined: 2006-June-05
- Location:Oslo, Norway
- Interests:Bridge, sports, Sci-fi, fantasy
Posted 2009-February-12, 00:58
Agree with Justin.
Kind regards,
Harald
Harald
#4
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2009-February-12, 02:10
I don't think it's clear to act on the first round. I have a working 6-count with no aces and a singleton in partner's suit. If I could rely on partner to bid a 3-card minor in preference to a 6-card heart suit, double would be OK. In theory he might even have a four-card minor, but in real life he always seems to bid hearts and it usually plays down a drain. I'd pass.
Having passed, and heard partner bid 4♥ all by himself, I'd double.
Having doubled, and heard partner bid 4♥, I think we should now be in a forcing pass situation. We showed the balance of the high cards without finding a fit; then we bid a game apparently to make; then opponents who had apparently been willing to stop in 3♠ bid 4♠. I don't want partner to bid any more hearts, so I double.
Having passed, and heard partner bid 4♥ all by himself, I'd double.
Having doubled, and heard partner bid 4♥, I think we should now be in a forcing pass situation. We showed the balance of the high cards without finding a fit; then we bid a game apparently to make; then opponents who had apparently been willing to stop in 3♠ bid 4♠. I don't want partner to bid any more hearts, so I double.
... 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
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,033
- Joined: 2008-December-05
Posted 2009-February-12, 02:38
Really disagree that we are in a forcing pass after 1H 2S X 3S 4H 4S. The 2S then 4S bidder often has extra shape for this auction and theres no reason to think we have to beat them or bid imo, even if we had shown a lot of HCP (which i don't think we have?).
New website: http://www.justinlall.com
#6
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 973
- Joined: 2006-March-17
- Gender:Male
Posted 2009-February-12, 04:16
1- P 2- D
We all know that light travels faster than sound. That's why certain people appear bright until you hear them speak. Quoted by Albert Einstein.
#7
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2009-February-12, 13:01
JLOL, on Feb 12 2009, 09:38 AM, said:
Really disagree that we are in a forcing pass after 1H 2S X 3S 4H 4S. The 2S then 4S bidder often has extra shape for this auction and theres no reason to think we have to beat them or bid imo, even if we had shown a lot of HCP (which i don't think we have?).
Maybe we expect different things from the negative doubler. I'd expect at least invitational values, something like the same strength as for
1♥ (1♠) 2♣
which I also think should create a forcing pass at the four level.
... 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
Page 1 of 1