Page 1 of 1
fitting honnors, missfitting shape
#1
Posted 2010-December-12, 15:56
♠8xxx
♥AKQx
♦A10xx
♣x
all vul we are dealer
1♦-(1♠)-2♣-(2♠)
ps-(ps)-3♣-(ps)
??
2♣ is forcing (usually 10+)
♥AKQx
♦A10xx
♣x
all vul we are dealer
1♦-(1♠)-2♣-(2♠)
ps-(ps)-3♣-(ps)
??
2♣ is forcing (usually 10+)
#2
Posted 2010-December-12, 16:05
I would pass. I might regret it if partner's clubs are internally solid, but I think something like x xx xxx AQJxxxx or x xxx Kxx KQJxxx is not so unusual, opposite which game needs a lot of luck.
#3
Posted 2010-December-12, 16:10
3♥, maybe partner will agree to play with a 4-3 fit. I first thought of 3♠ asking for a stopper, but partner rates to have a singleton. Pass also came to my mind, can partner have a real minimum?
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
Also, he rates to not have a heart void when he leads the ♥3.
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
Besides playing for fun, most people also like to play bridge to win
My YouTube Channel
#4
Posted 2010-December-12, 16:35
Partner rates to have 7 clubs, so 6 cards outside. Of those, we can be pretty sure he is losing a spade, we have 4 tricks apart from that, so unless he has the J♥ or the K♦, he rates to lose 2 tricks outside trumps.
So, some hands where 5♣ could be good:
x xx xxx AKQTxxx
x xx Kxx KQJTxxx
x Jx Qxx KQJTxxx
Some hands where 5♣ is somewhere in between OK and quite bad:
x xx QJx KQJTxxx
x T9x xxx AKQJxx
Some where 5♣ is bad:
provided by karlson.
It partly depends on your style of 2♣. I play with one regular partner that bidding here can be quite aggressive if we have a good 6+ suit. So x xx xxx AQJxxxx would be completely normal.
That said, there aren't many hands where 4♣ goes off. I would bid 4♣, invitational. We just don't know how good partners hand is; let's involve him in the decision. I don't expect to go minus very often, unless partner is an animal.
So, some hands where 5♣ could be good:
x xx xxx AKQTxxx
x xx Kxx KQJTxxx
x Jx Qxx KQJTxxx
Some hands where 5♣ is somewhere in between OK and quite bad:
x xx QJx KQJTxxx
x T9x xxx AKQJxx
Some where 5♣ is bad:
provided by karlson.
It partly depends on your style of 2♣. I play with one regular partner that bidding here can be quite aggressive if we have a good 6+ suit. So x xx xxx AQJxxxx would be completely normal.
That said, there aren't many hands where 4♣ goes off. I would bid 4♣, invitational. We just don't know how good partners hand is; let's involve him in the decision. I don't expect to go minus very often, unless partner is an animal.
#5
Posted 2010-December-13, 03:43
Clear pass IMO.
Without interference, 3♣ would be invitationan for me.
With interference it's only competitive.
Without interference, 3♣ would be invitationan for me.
With interference it's only competitive.
Kind regards,
Harald
Harald
#6
Posted 2010-December-13, 05:07
just say no
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#7
Posted 2010-December-13, 16:49
Pass. I don't know why you are discussing all those majestic suits. This is really an everyday position. Partner has roughly 10 hcp and a one-suiter in clubs, but it doesn't need to be close to solid.
Michael Askgaard
#9
Posted 2010-December-13, 17:30
This was some sort of ATB, I play NFB normally so not very sure of what I was expected for 3♣.
Seems the consensous is that 3♣ is a huge underbid, I made 12 tricks in 3♣ with
♠x
♥Jxx
♦x
♣AQJ10xxxx
For a funny story, the other table started 1♦-(1NT)-double, all pass, and althou a red lead means 13 tricks for the defence, doubler opted for a ♣Q lead. But when in with ♦A, partner desperatelly underled ♥AKQ to score the rest for +500.
Seems the consensous is that 3♣ is a huge underbid, I made 12 tricks in 3♣ with
♠x
♥Jxx
♦x
♣AQJ10xxxx
For a funny story, the other table started 1♦-(1NT)-double, all pass, and althou a red lead means 13 tricks for the defence, doubler opted for a ♣Q lead. But when in with ♦A, partner desperatelly underled ♥AKQ to score the rest for +500.
#10
Posted 2010-December-15, 20:00
Fluffy, on 2010-December-13, 17:30, said:
This was some sort of ATB, I play NFB normally so not very sure of what I was expected for 3♣.
Seems the consensous is that 3♣ is a huge underbid, I made 12 tricks in 3♣ with
♠x
♥Jxx
♦x
♣AQJ10xxxx
For a funny story, the other table started 1♦-(1NT)-double, all pass, and althou a red lead means 13 tricks for the defence, doubler opted for a ♣Q lead. But when in with ♦A, partner desperatelly underled ♥AKQ to score the rest for +500.
Seems the consensous is that 3♣ is a huge underbid, I made 12 tricks in 3♣ with
♠x
♥Jxx
♦x
♣AQJ10xxxx
For a funny story, the other table started 1♦-(1NT)-double, all pass, and althou a red lead means 13 tricks for the defence, doubler opted for a ♣Q lead. But when in with ♦A, partner desperatelly underled ♥AKQ to score the rest for +500.
I'm not going to say anything about a consensus, just speak for myself: I think both of you bid this hand well. I don't think that just because you miss a game, one of you must have made a "huge underbid". That 12 tricks were available is really bad luck.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
Page 1 of 1

Help
