Here's one example where I was decidedly un-fabulous.
from the Nationals...
#1
Posted 2010-December-06, 12:37
Here's one example where I was decidedly un-fabulous.
"100% certain that many excellent players would disagree. This is far more about style/judgment than right vs. wrong." Fred
"Hysterical Raisins again - this time on the World stage, not just the ACBL" mycroft
#2
Posted 2010-December-06, 12:49
I don't see what's wrong with 3♦, natural and forcing, for the moment... Over the expected 3♠ response, lacking agreements as to 4♣ from me would mean, I would probably just cuebid 4♥.
-- Bertrand Russell
#4
Posted 2010-December-06, 13:16
"100% certain that many excellent players would disagree. This is far more about style/judgment than right vs. wrong." Fred
"Hysterical Raisins again - this time on the World stage, not just the ACBL" mycroft
#5
Posted 2010-December-06, 13:32
jillybean, on 2010-December-06, 13:16, said:
This makes it a bit tricky: 2♥X -3 is going to outscore both 3N and 4♠.
There's no garuntee that you're going to set 2HX.
You can't even be sure that partner is going to reopen with a double.
Even so, its tempting to go for blood.
(People really need to be taught that its dangerous to overcall crappy suits at the two level white versus white)
I'd suspect that I'd bid on since the thought of partner passing 2♥ is too painful to bear.
3♦ looks like the obvious starting point.
Over 3♥, I'll rebid 4N
Over 3♠, I'll bid 4♣
Over 4♦, I'll bid 4♥
#6
Posted 2010-December-06, 13:51
What is 4N/3♥ and after 4♣/3♠ are you happy if partner bids 5♣?
"100% certain that many excellent players would disagree. This is far more about style/judgment than right vs. wrong." Fred
"Hysterical Raisins again - this time on the World stage, not just the ACBL" mycroft
#7
Posted 2010-December-06, 14:32
jillybean, on 2010-December-06, 13:51, said:
What is 4N/3♥ and after 4♣/3♠ are you happy if partner bids 5♣?
Hi Kathryn
3♥ is a temporizing bid that denies the ability to bid 3♠,3N, 4♣, or 4♦.
Advancer's primary goal should be to bid 3NT with Hearts stopped
I would interprete 4N as a quantitative invite in NT
Opener can pattern out with a hand worth accepting
(Prepared to be told that I am very wrong)
As to the 4♣ after 3♠ sequence:
If I had really be interested in both minors, I would have started with a negative double.
I would expect most people to interprete 4♣ over 3♠ as a cue in support of Spades, in which case 4♣ probably shouldn't be natural.
A case can be made that 4♣ should be patterning out, however, i think that the cue bid interpretation is more useful.
#8
Posted 2010-December-06, 14:43
This is an accident waiting to happen since Axxxx void xxx Kxxxx is a ZAR opener
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#9
Posted 2010-December-06, 16:37
#10
Posted 2010-December-06, 16:48
#11
Posted 2010-December-06, 21:33
#12
Posted 2010-December-07, 00:37
why beat around the bush ull know where every card is at trick 1
www.longbeachbridge.com
#14
Posted 2010-December-07, 01:23
#15
Posted 2010-December-07, 08:45
hrothgar, on 2010-December-06, 14:32, said:
As to the 4♣ after 3♠ sequence:
If I had really be interested in both minors, I would have started with a negative double.
I would expect most people to interprete 4♣ over 3♠ as a cue in support of Spades, in which case 4♣ probably shouldn't be natural.
A case can be made that 4♣ should be patterning out, however, i think that the cue bid interpretation is more useful.
Is 3♠ by partner promising a 6c♠? Should partner always bid 3♥ if he has nothing to say?
#16
Posted 2010-December-07, 09:16
I didn't think 4♣ would have been anything other than natural so I didn't give it any serious consideration.
"100% certain that many excellent players would disagree. This is far more about style/judgment than right vs. wrong." Fred
"Hysterical Raisins again - this time on the World stage, not just the ACBL" mycroft
#17
Posted 2010-December-07, 11:33
I suppose on a bad day RHO has K of spades and A of diamonds and so 6D is right and not 6NT, but 6NT is gonne be easy if p has decent spades
www.longbeachbridge.com
#18
Posted 2010-December-07, 20:27
Dislike double as it misrepresents our hand in a constructive auction. 3♦ for now for lack of any better alternatives.
6NT is obviously terrible, and I don't think it merits any further comment.
#19
Posted 2010-December-07, 22:56
www.longbeachbridge.com
#20
Posted 2010-December-08, 09:39
rduran1216, on 2010-December-07, 22:56, said:
It almost doesn't matter what partner's hand is for 6N to be wrong. The reason its wrong is not because it's not likely to make - its because we have plenty of room to figure out what our best contract is, and the extra bidding will not likely make it easier for the defenders to lead and play.

Help
