Two-suited minimal balancing
#2
Posted 2009-November-10, 04:13
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.
#3
Posted 2009-November-10, 06:19
#4
Posted 2009-November-10, 07:21
#5
Posted 2009-November-10, 07:21
What is minimal about this?
-gwnn
#6
Posted 2009-November-10, 07:37
#7
Posted 2009-November-10, 08:17
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.
#8
Posted 2009-November-10, 09:46
#9
Posted 2009-November-10, 09:52
cardsharp, on Nov 10 2009, 08:46 AM, said:
2C showing a suit I am not ashamed of.
#10
Posted 2009-November-10, 09:55
#11
Posted 2009-November-10, 10:18
#12
Posted 2009-November-10, 13:18
jdonn, on Nov 10 2009, 11:18 AM, said:
ooooh! Someone besides me that is feeling a little under protected
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
#13
Posted 2009-November-10, 13:45
#14
Posted 2009-November-10, 16:08
jdonn, on Nov 10 2009, 11:18 AM, said:
Bah! You double and they bid 2♦ in that scenario, making three. You bid 2♣ instead and they bid 2♠ and THEN partner pounces.
I'm all in for low-level doubles. One partner of mine and I hit more stuff down low than a Vegas call girl, but sometimes you just have to bid what you are looking at.
2♣ for me.
-P.J. Painter.
#15
Posted 2009-November-10, 16:14
#16
Posted 2009-November-10, 16:22
kenrexford, on Nov 10 2009, 05:08 PM, said:
jdonn, on Nov 10 2009, 11:18 AM, said:
Bah! You double and they bid 2♦ in that scenario, making three.
On a combined 11 count with their side suit 6-1 offside? These opponents are too good for me
#17
Posted 2009-November-10, 16:25
kenrexford, on Nov 10 2009, 05:08 PM, said:
jdonn, on Nov 10 2009, 11:18 AM, said:
Bah! You double and they bid 2♦ in that scenario, making three. You bid 2♣ instead and they bid 2♠ and THEN partner pounces.
I'm all in for low-level doubles. One partner of mine and I hit more stuff down low than a Vegas call girl, but sometimes you just have to bid what you are looking at.
2♣ for me.
No, Josh and I double and then smack the 2♣ runout by RHO.
2♣ instead of the balancing x gets greeted by a collective "phew" by the opponents.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#18
Posted 2009-November-10, 16:27
Phil, on Nov 10 2009, 05:25 PM, said:
kenrexford, on Nov 10 2009, 05:08 PM, said:
jdonn, on Nov 10 2009, 11:18 AM, said:
Bah! You double and they bid 2♦ in that scenario, making three. You bid 2♣ instead and they bid 2♠ and THEN partner pounces.
I'm all in for low-level doubles. One partner of mine and I hit more stuff down low than a Vegas call girl, but sometimes you just have to bid what you are looking at.
2♣ for me.
No, Josh and I double and then smack the 2♣ runout by RHO.
2♣ instead of the balancing x gets greeted by a collective "phew" by the opponents.
Or, they just bid 2♦ or 2♠ and jam our club suit when we don't actually have any penalty pipe dreams available.
-P.J. Painter.
#20
Posted 2009-November-11, 03:57
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...

Help
