Help
Still MPs
(r/w)
♠J8xxx ♥K8xxx ♦Qx ♣x
(1♦) - 1♠ - (2♠) - ?
and similarly....
♠T6xxx ♥AKJ8x ♦x ♣K9
p - 1♠;
2♣* - ?
* limit raise - trump length unknown.
Page 1 of 1
Torrance - III and IV
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,093
- Joined: 2008-December-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:North Texas, USA
- Interests:Mountain Biking
Posted 2012-October-25, 10:26
Hi y'all!
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#2
- Redoubling with gusto
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,712
- Joined: 2009-October-19
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
- Interests:Math, Bridge, Beer. Often at the same time.
Posted 2012-October-25, 10:57
Pass looks really attractive on hand 1. Maybe this is masterminding, but I don't think 3S does enough damage, and 4S is probably too rich r/w.
I'd bid 2H natural on 2.
I'd bid 2H natural on 2.
"I think maybe so and so was caught cheating but maybe I don't have the names right". Sure, and I think maybe your mother .... Oh yeah, that was someone else maybe. -- kenberg
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other. -- Hamman, re: Wolff
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other. -- Hamman, re: Wolff
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,207
- Joined: 2009-April-26
- Gender:Male
- Location:Wellington, NZ
Posted 2012-October-25, 12:36
I'll bid 4♠ on 1 despite the vulnerability. Maybe too much but I'm worth three and a half at least, and partner won't expect this much shape if I just bid three.
On the second one I'll bid 2♥, which I would pretty much always do when holding hearts and too good to sign off. Obviously we care a lot whether partner has three or four card support so may well have a problem on the next round. 2♥ isn't weaker or stronger than 2♦ the way I play, but not 100% sure what is standard here.
On the second one I'll bid 2♥, which I would pretty much always do when holding hearts and too good to sign off. Obviously we care a lot whether partner has three or four card support so may well have a problem on the next round. 2♥ isn't weaker or stronger than 2♦ the way I play, but not 100% sure what is standard here.
#4
- World International Master without a clue
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,404
- Joined: 2003-November-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:madrid
Posted 2012-October-25, 15:16
first one I am happy with 3♠, I might try 3♥ as a passed hand but not here.
second one its close to just blast game and let them guess, even if partner has ♠xxx we ain't down yet.
but if partner will knows how to evaluate after 2♥ I prefer it.
second one its close to just blast game and let them guess, even if partner has ♠xxx we ain't down yet.
but if partner will knows how to evaluate after 2♥ I prefer it.
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,952
- Joined: 2008-June-23
- Gender:Male
Posted 2012-October-25, 15:48
I'm in for 3♠ on #1 which may well park them in 4♦ with the problem of evaluating spade shortness (or not) in their pards hand and if pard has a good one, we'll hear about it.
On #2, pard can evaluate after 2♥ but so can they, finding a good sac? (same r/w I assume). I'm blasting 4♠ and damn the torpedoes.
On #2, pard can evaluate after 2♥ but so can they, finding a good sac? (same r/w I assume). I'm blasting 4♠ and damn the torpedoes.
When a deaf person goes to court is it still called a hearing?
What is baby oil made of?
What is baby oil made of?
#6
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 317
- Joined: 2011-October-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Melbourne, Australia
Posted 2012-October-25, 16:53
3♠ on the first one, 4 tends to get whacked and go for 5's or 8's too often.
2♥ if it is Nat and if isn't a GF.
2♥ if it is Nat and if isn't a GF.
#7
- Modern Day Trebuchet Enthusiast
-
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 738
- Joined: 2007-October-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Western Mass.
Posted 2012-October-25, 17:38
I think anything but 4♠ on #1 is crazy. Wouldn't overthink it. Even at these colors I'd wager it's right more often than not.
On #2 if I don't bid 2♥ I guess I bid 4♠, may as well not give away any extra info. Sorta depends on your lower limit, if partner promises at least a good 10 then just blasting is a reasonable gamble, maybe they'll make a bad lead and our heart suit will surprise them. If it can be less then 2♥ seems better to let partner evaluate.
On #2 if I don't bid 2♥ I guess I bid 4♠, may as well not give away any extra info. Sorta depends on your lower limit, if partner promises at least a good 10 then just blasting is a reasonable gamble, maybe they'll make a bad lead and our heart suit will surprise them. If it can be less then 2♥ seems better to let partner evaluate.
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
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-March-07
- Gender:Male
- Location:Laos
- Interests:Wagner and Bridge
Posted 2012-October-25, 17:54
4S on the first, 2H on the second.
"The King of Hearts a broadsword bears, the Queen of Hearts a rose." W. H. Auden.
#9
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2012-October-26, 01:25
4♠ looks obvious on 1. Yes, it might go for 500, but it might also be cold. Or it might be going down but provoke them into bidding something that's going down.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
#10
- World International Master without a clue
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,404
- Joined: 2003-November-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:madrid
Posted 2012-October-26, 01:31
gnasher, on 2012-October-26, 01:25, said:
4♠ looks obvious on 1. Yes, it might go for 500, but it might also be cold. Or it might be going down but provoke them into bidding something that's going down.
change 500 for a larger number and the sentence is right for every deal
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,585
- Joined: 2005-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canada
- Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.
Posted 2012-October-26, 09:46
On the first one, 3♠ seems about right. I really don't like the Qx diamonds....4♠ could obviously work, but invites -200 as well as 500. This is mps, so -200 on a partscore hand won't be wonderful.
On the 2nd, this seems like an advertisement for 2 way drury, where we'd just bid game if we knew partner held 4 trump. As it is, a natural 2♥ seems reasonable. There are hands where natural bidding loses out to blasting, because we give away too much information, but I'm not worried about that on this hand, not compared to the trump problem.
On the 2nd, this seems like an advertisement for 2 way drury, where we'd just bid game if we knew partner held 4 trump. As it is, a natural 2♥ seems reasonable. There are hands where natural bidding loses out to blasting, because we give away too much information, but I'm not worried about that on this hand, not compared to the trump problem.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
#12
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,366
- Joined: 2012-March-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Illinois
- Interests:Bridge, Golf, Soccer
Posted 2012-October-26, 14:37
4 ♠ on the first hand and I'd be ready to apologize, if it doesn't work out.
2 ♥ on the second, the hand is definitely worth a game try.
2 ♥ on the second, the hand is definitely worth a game try.
Page 1 of 1