yes or not?
#1
Posted 2009-December-04, 06:30
♥942
♦653
♣J10
MPs, NS Vulnerable, north dealer
ps-(ps)-ps-(1♣)
ps-(1♦)-??
#2
Posted 2009-December-04, 06:33
#3
Posted 2009-December-04, 07:24
George Carlin
#4
Posted 2009-December-04, 07:35
#5
Posted 2009-December-04, 08:44
Fluffy, on Dec 4 2009, 07:30 AM, said:
♥942
♦653
♣J10
MPs, NS Vulnerable, north dealer
ps-(ps)-ps-(1♣)
ps-(1♦)-??
I voted "yes" I would pass rather than "yes" I would bid 1♠
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
#6
Posted 2009-December-04, 08:55
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.
#7
Posted 2009-December-04, 13:38
#8
Posted 2009-December-04, 16:43
A much more likely scenario is that they get to 3N and partner is on lead and we save 1+ trick by partner leading a spade rather than the something else he was probably going to lead. Since this will probably happen about 20x as often imo as getting doubled in 1S or having partner bid 2S and getting doubled there, I think at matchpoints it is really obvious to bid.
#9
Posted 2009-December-04, 16:51
Jlall, on Dec 4 2009, 05:43 PM, said:
A much more likely scenario is that they get to 3N and partner is on lead and we save 1+ trick by partner leading a spade rather than the something else he was probably going to lead. Since this will probably happen about 20x as often imo as getting doubled in 1S or having partner bid 2S and getting doubled there, I think at matchpoints it is really obvious to bid.
I agree....especially since -200, which is usually a mp score to avoid at almost all costs, is almost certainly going to be a good score should we incur it (although it is tough to see how that would happen). Strangely, it is the weakness of our hand that makes bidding relatively safe. If we held an 8 count, for example, the opps will often lack the values for game and now -200, even undoubled, will be horrible.
Wouldn't bid at imps, tho, even tho the lead factor may be even more critical on some hands. Too often the lead will be about overtricks, rather than beating them.
#10
Posted 2009-December-04, 16:57
#11
Posted 2009-December-04, 18:06
#12
Posted 2009-December-04, 18:20
The_Hog, on Dec 4 2009, 05:06 PM, said:
Curious about that one. If the opps play Walsh their normal limit is only 7 spades between them. If they don't, it could be 8.
edit: oh, I guess you are trying to make them miss their heart fit if they bid up the line.
#13
Posted 2009-December-06, 08:59
3NT-p-p-p
partner underled ♥KJ9x, dummy had ♠Qx ♥Axx so have a wild guess
#14
Posted 2009-December-06, 13:37
Fluffy, on Dec 6 2009, 09:59 AM, said:
3NT-p-p-p
partner underled ♥KJ9x, dummy had ♠Qx ♥Axx so have a wild guess
shocking
#15
Posted 2009-December-06, 14:48
Fluffy, on Dec 6 2009, 02:59 PM, said:
3NT-p-p-p
partner underled ♥KJ9x, dummy had ♠Qx ♥Axx so have a wild guess
If you had bid 1S perhaps they would have played 3NT the other way up?
#16
Posted 2009-December-06, 15:35
FrancesHinden, on Dec 6 2009, 09:48 PM, said:
But then we could lead a heart
#17
Posted 2009-December-06, 15:54
Why are there 2 ♥9's in the deck?

Help
