Let's say North supports spades showing a good hand (FG+)Is there any reason to double with West's hand?
You bid vulnerable so I double... ATB
#1
Posted 2013-June-13, 19:44
Let's say North supports spades showing a good hand (FG+)Is there any reason to double with West's hand?
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
My YouTube Channel
#2
Posted 2013-June-13, 22:47
EDIT: Unless DBL specifically shows a hand that has 0-1 tricks in defense + ♣ support.
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#3
Posted 2013-June-13, 22:55
No reason whatsoever.
#4
Posted 2013-June-13, 23:03
#5
Posted 2013-June-14, 01:06
inquiry, on 2013-June-13, 23:03, said:
Ok Ben. I did not think of this possibility and "yes" I agree with you. However I think it is most unlikely that the op had this thought in mind.
#7
Posted 2013-June-14, 03:22
And west doesn t know, that east has absolutly no Defense trick. If east had the jack of hearts and/or the diamond figures are onside, slam is not possible most of the time.
#8
Posted 2013-June-14, 05:08
EricK, on 2013-June-14, 01:14, said:
No. What Ben is saying that a x is absurd except for the remote possibility that......
#10
Posted 2013-June-14, 07:29
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
My YouTube Channel
#11
Posted 2013-June-14, 07:40
If East doubled 5♠ I would sit for it (I am not suggesting that East should double 5♠ - far from it).
#13
Posted 2013-June-14, 08:27
Hanoi5, on 2013-June-14, 07:29, said:
Anyone who thinks it might has basically misinterpretted something written in the 70s by Kantar or whoever. Virtually noone plays the -650/750 method of "always forcing at red anymore" - I'd go so far as to say it is not bridge. Bidding 5♣ is a potentially a punt at any colours, and partner then passed it, showing a hand that does not think we can make slam.
#14
Posted 2013-June-14, 08:50
I would show my 3-card support instead, hoping they dare not double us.
#15
Posted 2013-June-14, 10:25
EricK, on 2013-June-14, 01:14, said:
No, but he might think he has.
#16
Posted 2013-June-14, 10:39
forced to game in spades. That means you p already has a
strong idea of your maximum when they chose to bid 5c
at unfavorable. You have zero clue what p hand looks like
so you have no logical basis to make any further decisions
with this particular hand.If by chance you had the 2 red suit
aces instead of this collection of garbage you could bid 6c
note that i still would not x 5s.
This collection however merely increases the probability we
have zero club tricks and our only hope is diamond trick(s).
I wholeheartedly agree with the opinion that we should not
x 7s much less consider x of 5s. The strip tailed ape x has a
fall back position and we have no clue if such a situation
exists in this hand thus making that bid immediately obsolete.
#17
Posted 2013-June-14, 11:47

Help
