Help
Matchpoints
5 card majors, 2♠ is Michaels, 3♥ would have been a stronger raise than 3♠. X of 2♠ would probably have shown support as well.
Page 1 of 1
Boring Competitive Hand
#1
- Modern Day Trebuchet Enthusiast
-
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 738
- Joined: 2007-October-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Western Mass.
Posted 2012-November-02, 20:57
Matchpoints
5 card majors, 2♠ is Michaels, 3♥ would have been a stronger raise than 3♠. X of 2♠ would probably have shown support as well.
I once yelled at my partner for discarding the 'wrong' card when he was subjected to a squeeze that I allowed by giving the wrong count with too high a card. Now he's allowed to pitch aces when the opponents have the king in the dummy. At trick 2. When he could have followed suit. And blame me.
East4Evil ♥ sohcahtoa 4ever!!!!!1
East4Evil ♥ sohcahtoa 4ever!!!!!1
#2
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,410
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2012-November-02, 23:10
kayin801, on 2012-November-02, 20:57, said:
X of 2♠ would probably have shown support as well.
How many different ways do you need to show support? How does partner suggest interest in doubling them?
#3
- World International Master without a clue
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,404
- Joined: 2003-November-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:madrid
Posted 2012-November-03, 02:47
a raise at the 2 level covers you between 2 and 3 losers, an invitational range covers you more, but partner doesn't have either, he has a good raise that should cover between 2.5 and 3 losers.
We lose ♠A, ♥6, ♦104 + the king half the time, +♣Q4, for a total of 6.5, partner covers 2.5 wich leaves us with 4 losers normally. Given that we didn't take into account the power of ♦10 or ♣Q it is possible that we have a chance on making game but it is not a good bet and I would pass.
We lose ♠A, ♥6, ♦104 + the king half the time, +♣Q4, for a total of 6.5, partner covers 2.5 wich leaves us with 4 losers normally. Given that we didn't take into account the power of ♦10 or ♣Q it is possible that we have a chance on making game but it is not a good bet and I would pass.
#4
- Limit bidder
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,482
- Joined: 2004-November-02
- Gender:Female
- Location:England
- Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those
Posted 2012-November-03, 04:02
I would pass and think this is obvious, but that's based on my understand of what a 3S bid looks like. Your partner may have different views.
I think 3S is a pre-emptive raise, so something like
J10xx
xxxx
x
KJxx
would be plenty, and that has 4 obvious losers
I think 3S is a pre-emptive raise, so something like
J10xx
xxxx
x
KJxx
would be plenty, and that has 4 obvious losers
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,679
- Joined: 2008-April-06
Posted 2012-November-04, 04:59
Agree with Frances, it is too simple to warrant the analysis Fluffy gives it. If 3♥ is invitational, 3♠ is not. I would accept an invitation, but I am not stronger than that.
Page 1 of 1