Help
w/r, swiss matches
Q7xxx x KQxx QTx
p - 1♣ - p - 1♥
1♠ - x - 2♠ - 3♥
p - 4♥ - p - p
x is 3 hearts
Page 1 of 1
Bid on?
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,094
- Joined: 2008-December-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:North Texas, USA
- Interests:Mountain Biking
Posted 2013-January-28, 00:43
Hi y'all!
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-March-07
- Gender:Male
- Location:Laos
- Interests:Wagner and Bridge
Posted 2013-January-28, 01:21
I am not taking the last guess.
"The King of Hearts a broadsword bears, the Queen of Hearts a rose." W. H. Auden.
#3
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2013-January-28, 03:14
No, definitely not. We have only an 8-card fit, my spades are weak, I have plenty of defence, partner may have heart values or length, and even if 4♠ is a save it won't be especially cheap. Imagine partner with Kxx Kxxx xxx Jxx.
... 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
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,272
- Joined: 2003-April-26
- Gender:Male
- Location:Edinburgh
Posted 2013-January-28, 03:53
This is so far from being a close decision, with pass clearly marked, that I can only think that partner hesitated over four hearts and this hand bid on for a successful save.
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,697
- Joined: 2011-February-12
Posted 2013-January-28, 07:27
P* rates to have around 7 hcp and 3 spades (no 3s bid) (no xx)
We have little in the way of defense and a singleton in opps suit ideal
conditions to consider a sacrifice.
*Within that range the most common result seems to be where we go
down 3. Down 2 is pretty scarce and there are many more hands where
(see gnasher) down 4 (5?) is quite achievable. The probable reward
of +(120-150) just isn't sufficient to make up for the possible -(180-480)
that 4s will get us in. This is a much closer question at MP where we only
need the down 2 or 3 to outnumber the -4/5 to probably come out ahead.
A small amount of hands p will have bid 2s with 2 aces and a flat hand.
We could actually set 4h making the IMP 4s bid much worse and taking
away from any possible MP advantage.
We have little in the way of defense and a singleton in opps suit ideal
conditions to consider a sacrifice.
*Within that range the most common result seems to be where we go
down 3. Down 2 is pretty scarce and there are many more hands where
(see gnasher) down 4 (5?) is quite achievable. The probable reward
of +(120-150) just isn't sufficient to make up for the possible -(180-480)
that 4s will get us in. This is a much closer question at MP where we only
need the down 2 or 3 to outnumber the -4/5 to probably come out ahead.
A small amount of hands p will have bid 2s with 2 aces and a flat hand.
We could actually set 4h making the IMP 4s bid much worse and taking
away from any possible MP advantage.
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,992
- Joined: 2005-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canada
- Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.
Posted 2013-January-28, 12:05
Do we have an unusually offensive hand for our 1♠ overcall?
No.
Do we have more defence than we might have?
Yes.
Do we have a partner who saw us bid 1♠?
Yes.
Do we have a partner who has an unusual O/D ratio for his modest 2♠ call?
Well, probably not and, if he does, then he's the one who has caused us to miss a good save. I am not bidding on the assumption that either he misbid or we have a lucky combination of cards such that a superficially silly save works out.
I agree with paul, to the effect that I just don't see why this would be viewed as a problem by most players.
No.
Do we have more defence than we might have?
Yes.
Do we have a partner who saw us bid 1♠?
Yes.
Do we have a partner who has an unusual O/D ratio for his modest 2♠ call?
Well, probably not and, if he does, then he's the one who has caused us to miss a good save. I am not bidding on the assumption that either he misbid or we have a lucky combination of cards such that a superficially silly save works out.
I agree with paul, to the effect that I just don't see why this would be viewed as a problem by most players.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,786
- Joined: 2004-September-05
- Gender:Male
- Location:Galloway NJ USA
-
Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.
Posted 2013-January-28, 12:41
Agree with the choir. This is not a close decision. Pass.
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,240
- Joined: 2012-June-25
Posted 2013-January-28, 14:55
I would retain the deposit.
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 12,029
- Joined: 2009-February-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:St. George, UT
Posted 2013-January-28, 15:31
PhilKing, on 2013-January-28, 14:55, said:
I would retain the deposit.
Aha. A reason for the question
I think Hargreaves is already deciding how the org can spend the money.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,094
- Joined: 2008-December-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:North Texas, USA
- Interests:Mountain Biking
Posted 2013-January-28, 17:42
I think bidding is ludicrous. However, as PhilK surmised, partner tanked over 4♥ and this hand saved for a slight pickup of 500 v 650.
Partner held AJx Kxx Jxx xxxx. And no idea what this tank was all about.
I chose not to adjust, because I'm not clear what the tank suggests opposite the OP.
Partner held AJx Kxx Jxx xxxx. And no idea what this tank was all about.
I chose not to adjust, because I'm not clear what the tank suggests opposite the OP.
Hi y'all!
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,992
- Joined: 2005-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canada
- Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.
Posted 2013-January-28, 18:15
aguahombre, on 2013-January-28, 15:31, said:
Aha. A reason for the question
I think Hargreaves is already deciding how the org can spend the money.
I think Hargreaves is already deciding how the org can spend the money.
What makes you think that I wouldn't simply keep the money myself
'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: 3,240
- Joined: 2012-June-25
Posted 2013-January-28, 18:56
Phil, on 2013-January-28, 17:42, said:
I chose not to adjust, because I'm not clear what the tank suggests opposite the OP.
It's true that a tank (when we are looking at a stiff trump) is as likely to be a hand that was thinking of doubling, but the player concerned probably bid on for, er, illicit reasons.
Page 1 of 1