4, 5, 6
#1
Posted 2009-September-29, 03:30
♥72
♦QJ62
♣KQ
Dealer east, vul NS
(3♥)-pass-(4♥)-double
(pass)-???
#2
Posted 2009-September-29, 03:54
#3
Posted 2009-September-29, 04:26
George Carlin
#4
Posted 2009-September-29, 04:49
#5
Posted 2009-September-29, 04:56
#6
Posted 2009-September-29, 05:32
Jlall, on Sep 29 2009, 05:56 AM, said:
Better to congratulate yourself for your braveness when partner instead turns up with
♠KQJx, ♥-,♦Axxx,♣AJxxx
I, a coward, prefer to bid and fight it out at 5♠, if my vulnerable partner, who was not in the pass-out seat, and really came in at the 4 level with KJxx x Kxxx Axxx opposite a hand who had already passed over 3♥.
Rainer Herrmann
#7
Posted 2009-September-29, 05:40
rhm, on Sep 29 2009, 06:32 AM, said:
Jlall, on Sep 29 2009, 05:56 AM, said:
Better to congratulate yourself for your braveness when partner instead turns up with
♠KQJx, ♥-,♦Axxx,♣AJxxx
I prefer to fight it out at 5♠, if necessary.
Rainer Herrmann
Partner has minimums way more than he has maximums!
#8
Posted 2009-September-29, 05:41
Jlall, on Sep 29 2009, 05:56 AM, said:
Better to congratulate yourself for your braveness when partner instead turns up with
♠KQJx, ♥-,♦Axxx,♣AJxxx
I, a coward, prefer to bid and fight it out at 5♠, if my vulnerable partner, who was not in the pass-out seat, and really came in at the 4 level with KJxx x Kxxx Axxx opposite a hand who had already passed over 3♥.
Rainer Herrmann
#9
Posted 2009-September-29, 06:00
Jlall, on Sep 29 2009, 06:40 AM, said:
rhm, on Sep 29 2009, 06:32 AM, said:
Jlall, on Sep 29 2009, 05:56 AM, said:
Better to congratulate yourself for your braveness when partner instead turns up with
♠KQJx, ♥-,♦Axxx,♣AJxxx
I prefer to fight it out at 5♠, if necessary.
Rainer Herrmann
Partner has minimums way more than he has maximums!
The question is what a minimum double should look like at unfavorable vulnerability at the 4 level.
To me your hand looks like a normal minimum takeout double at the one level.
And if you consider your hand a minimum double at the 4 level, mine is certainly not a maximum and the range becomes extremely wide.
Catering for the absolute minimum in such a scenario will lead to far more missed slams than taking the middle ground with a slightly more optimistic view will lead to minus scores.
Rainer Herrmann
#10
Posted 2009-September-29, 07:24
rhm, on Sep 29 2009, 07:00 AM, said:
Jlall, on Sep 29 2009, 06:40 AM, said:
rhm, on Sep 29 2009, 06:32 AM, said:
Jlall, on Sep 29 2009, 05:56 AM, said:
Better to congratulate yourself for your braveness when partner instead turns up with
♠KQJx, ♥-,♦Axxx,♣AJxxx
I prefer to fight it out at 5♠, if necessary.
Rainer Herrmann
Partner has minimums way more than he has maximums!
The question is what a minimum double should look like at unfavorable vulnerability at the 4 level.
To me your hand looks like a normal minimum takeout double at the one level.
And if you consider your hand a minimum double at the 4 level, mine is certainly not a maximum and the range becomes extremely wide.
Catering for the absolute minimum in such a scenario will lead to far more missed slams than taking the middle ground with a slightly more optimistic view will lead to minus scores.
Rainer Herrmann
Rainer
That is not a nut you are trying to crack it is a diamond! GL
the Freman, Chani from the move "Dune"
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
George Bernard Shaw
#12
Posted 2009-September-29, 14:28
Denies a heart control but partner is allowed to pass with one. (5♥ would show a 5♠ bid with a heart control. At least that's how I'm used to play).
We will often have a slam, and it takes a careful construction to leave us in greater danger in 5♠ than an unlucky ruff or a very bad trump split. I'm surprised about the pessimism of some of the previous posters.
#13
Posted 2009-September-30, 02:35
KQxxx
-
Axx
10xxxx
♣3-3 and ♦K onside meant that 6♠ was cold.
At the table I tried 5♠, LHO 6♥ and partner quickly doubled wich gatherer +300
#14
Posted 2009-September-30, 02:46
I voted for 4 though.
#15
Posted 2009-September-30, 02:56
Fluffy, on Sep 30 2009, 09:35 AM, said:
It also means that it is a slam you don't want to be in.
#16
Posted 2009-September-30, 07:50
Vampyr, on Sep 30 2009, 03:56 AM, said:
Fluffy, on Sep 30 2009, 09:35 AM, said:
It also means that it is a slam you don't want to be in.
Maybe so. But it is not as bad as you might think. The ♦ finesse is more than 50% to work and if the Jack♣ falls in 4-2 breaks you are a cow in clover.
the Freman, Chani from the move "Dune"
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
George Bernard Shaw
#17
Posted 2009-September-30, 10:32
Jlall, on Sep 29 2009, 05:56 AM, said:
rhm, on Sep 29 2009, 06:32 AM, said:
I, a coward, prefer to bid and fight it out at 5♠, if my vulnerable partner, who was not in the pass-out seat, and really came in at the 4 level with KJxx x Kxxx Axxx opposite a hand who had already passed over 3♥.
#18
Posted 2009-September-30, 11:00
#19
Posted 2009-September-30, 11:34
Vampyr, on Sep 30 2009, 03:56 AM, said:
Fluffy, on Sep 30 2009, 09:35 AM, said:
It also means that it is a slam you don't want to be in.
Thinking about it and to be fair, if partner merely had JTxxx of clubs instead of Txxxx you wouldn't need the 3-3 club break or the diamond finesse to make. The more I think about this hand the more I like bidding 5. Slam could easily make even if partner was stretching a bit like Axxx x xxx AJxxx plus whatever else you need to make a minimum double (though I won't reach that one.) I am intending it as a general invitation which also denies a heart control, not as a request to bid slam if he has a heart control.

Help
