Help
1NT, easy one.
Supporting ♠ as opener with 3 cards is pointless IMO, doing it when you know for sure there cannot be a fit.... Oh, well it can be better, who knows.
What do you bid?
#21
- World International Master without a clue
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,404
- Joined: 2003-November-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:madrid
Posted 2005-March-18, 06:41
#22
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2005-March-19, 06:38
I was sitting west. Opener had a 4-3-2-4. His partner passed the 1♠ bid, and they got a bottom (they went -1 tnx to great defense from my partner, while 2♥ was laydown). Whoever claims that your opponents will bid in this situation is playing too much against weak opponents imo, it's completely crazy to bid V vs NV after misfit auctions.
About the walsch thingy: the guys told me they only bypass a Major after 1♣-1♦, not after 1♥ response. I don't know who is right or wrong in this discussion, but they seem to play a simple "walsch-response scheme", nothing else.
About the walsch thingy: the guys told me they only bypass a Major after 1♣-1♦, not after 1♥ response. I don't know who is right or wrong in this discussion, but they seem to play a simple "walsch-response scheme", nothing else.
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#23
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,303
- Joined: 2003-February-14
- Location:England
Posted 2005-March-19, 07:01
Free, on Mar 19 2005, 12:38 PM, said:
I was sitting west. Opener had a 4-3-2-4. His partner passed the 1♠ bid, and they got a bottom (they went -1 tnx to great defense from my partner, while 2♥ was laydown). Whoever claims that your opponents will bid in this situation is playing too much against weak opponents imo, it's completely crazy to bid V vs NV after misfit auctions.
About the walsch thingy: the guys told me they only bypass a Major after 1♣-1♦, not after 1♥ response. I don't know who is right or wrong in this discussion, but they seem to play a simple "walsch-response scheme", nothing else.
About the walsch thingy: the guys told me they only bypass a Major after 1♣-1♦, not after 1♥ response. I don't know who is right or wrong in this discussion, but they seem to play a simple "walsch-response scheme", nothing else.
Which is why opener should have raised ♥ when he had the chance!
Eric
#24
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2005-March-19, 08:26
EricK, on Mar 19 2005, 07:01 AM, said:
Free, on Mar 19 2005, 12:38 PM, said:
I was sitting west. Opener had a 4-3-2-4. His partner passed the 1♠ bid, and they got a bottom (they went -1 tnx to great defense from my partner, while 2♥ was laydown). Whoever claims that your opponents will bid in this situation is playing too much against weak opponents imo, it's completely crazy to bid V vs NV after misfit auctions.
About the walsch thingy: the guys told me they only bypass a Major after 1♣-1♦, not after 1♥ response. I don't know who is right or wrong in this discussion, but they seem to play a simple "walsch-response scheme", nothing else.
About the walsch thingy: the guys told me they only bypass a Major after 1♣-1♦, not after 1♥ response. I don't know who is right or wrong in this discussion, but they seem to play a simple "walsch-response scheme", nothing else.
Which is why opener should have raised ♥ when he had the chance!
Eric
or bid 1nt instead of 1♠
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#25
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,303
- Joined: 2003-February-14
- Location:England
Posted 2005-March-19, 08:47
luke warm, on Mar 19 2005, 02:26 PM, said:
EricK, on Mar 19 2005, 07:01 AM, said:
Free, on Mar 19 2005, 12:38 PM, said:
I was sitting west. Opener had a 4-3-2-4. His partner passed the 1♠ bid, and they got a bottom (they went -1 tnx to great defense from my partner, while 2♥ was laydown). Whoever claims that your opponents will bid in this situation is playing too much against weak opponents imo, it's completely crazy to bid V vs NV after misfit auctions.
About the walsch thingy: the guys told me they only bypass a Major after 1♣-1♦, not after 1♥ response. I don't know who is right or wrong in this discussion, but they seem to play a simple "walsch-response scheme", nothing else.
About the walsch thingy: the guys told me they only bypass a Major after 1♣-1♦, not after 1♥ response. I don't know who is right or wrong in this discussion, but they seem to play a simple "walsch-response scheme", nothing else.
Which is why opener should have raised ♥ when he had the chance!
Eric
or bid 1nt instead of 1♠
Will responder always return to 2♥ with 5♥? If so, playing 2♥ with Jxxxx opposite xx is no fun; but if not you would miss the 5-3 fit unless opener raises.
Eric
#26
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2005-March-19, 09:08
EricK, on Mar 19 2005, 08:47 AM, said:
Will responder always return to 2♥ with 5♥? If so, playing 2♥ with Jxxxx opposite xx is no fun; but if not you would miss the 5-3 fit unless opener raises.
Eric
Eric
not always, no... when it seems right, yes... judgement call... the point is, you can play in 4/3 or 5/3 by raising (unless responder has 6, in which case he'll bid 2H himself) or 1nt by not raising... some think it's more important to show shape first (ie, deny 4 card or *good* 3 support), regardless of distribution... some don't
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#27
- World International Master without a clue
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,404
- Joined: 2003-November-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:madrid
Posted 2005-March-21, 10:54
Playing walsh 1♣-1♥-1♠ may still be balanced.
1NT is for sure a good contract.
1NT is for sure a good contract.
#28
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,151
- Joined: 2003-June-11
- Location:Southern California
Posted 2005-March-21, 11:21
hrothgar, on Mar 17 2005, 07:11 PM, said:
pclayton, on Mar 18 2005, 03:52 AM, said:
1S does not promise an unbalanced hand. But in my partnerships it carries the same level of force as a reverse.Not standard, I know.
With this agreement, my biggest worry is that part holds a semi balanced 18-19 that spins 3N. Sometimes we will rebid 1S on a bare 4333 19 or a thin 18 like AQxx xx AQx AQxx.
With this agreement, my biggest worry is that part holds a semi balanced 18-19 that spins 3N. Sometimes we will rebid 1S on a bare 4333 19 or a thin 18 like AQxx xx AQx AQxx.
The original post explictly noted that 1♠ is non-forcing
Partner doesn't have a balanced 18-19 count.
The original post said 1♠ was non-forcing. It didn't deny a balanced 18-19.
Opposite a mangy 5 or 6 count with 3 spades, 1♠ can be a very attractive spot.
"Phil" on BBO
#29
- Group: Members
- Posts: 22
- Joined: 2005-January-29
Posted 2005-March-23, 02:20
This is a very basic question.
As I like to play
[1] The 1S bid confirms an unbalanced [or semi balanced with values in 2 suits] hand with 4+ clubs & 4+ spades....usually 5+ clubs
[2] with a balanced hand & quite a few semibalanced hands with 4 spades I bid 1NT & use a checkback of some sort over this 1NT.
There seem to be 2 possible bids
[1]1NT
[2]Pass or 2S. It would help to know the strength required to bid 2S rather than 1Sas used by the partnership.If 17+ then PASS is correct , otherwise 2S.If undiscussed I will take my chances with 2S as lots of GOOD things may happen and at worst we will be 1 down.I do not shy away from playing a moysian as many do at BBO
As I like to play
[1] The 1S bid confirms an unbalanced [or semi balanced with values in 2 suits] hand with 4+ clubs & 4+ spades....usually 5+ clubs
[2] with a balanced hand & quite a few semibalanced hands with 4 spades I bid 1NT & use a checkback of some sort over this 1NT.
There seem to be 2 possible bids
[1]1NT
[2]Pass or 2S. It would help to know the strength required to bid 2S rather than 1Sas used by the partnership.If 17+ then PASS is correct , otherwise 2S.If undiscussed I will take my chances with 2S as lots of GOOD things may happen and at worst we will be 1 down.I do not shy away from playing a moysian as many do at BBO
#30
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,972
- Joined: 2004-July-25
- Gender:Male
- Location:Maine, USA
Posted 2005-March-23, 10:17
Free, on Mar 17 2005, 04:33 AM, said:
Bidding goes (partner starts, opps are quiet):
1♣ - 1♥
1♠ - ?
You hold:
What do you bid?
1♣ - 1♥
1♠ - ?
You hold:
|
|
What do you bid?
Is this a companion hand to:
♠J1086
♥K106
♦8
♣AKJ106
from another thread? I guess it can't quite be.
#31
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,972
- Joined: 2004-July-25
- Gender:Male
- Location:Maine, USA
Posted 2005-March-23, 10:21
hrothgar, on Mar 17 2005, 10:11 PM, said:
The original post explictly noted that 1♠ is non-forcing
Partner doesn't have a balanced 18-19 count.
Partner doesn't have a balanced 18-19 count.
How does the non-forcing nature of 1♠ preclude the possibility of 18-19 balanced?
#32
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2005-March-23, 13:26
TimG, on Mar 23 2005, 05:17 PM, said:
Free, on Mar 17 2005, 04:33 AM, said:
Bidding goes (partner starts, opps are quiet):
1♣ - 1♥
1♠ - ?
You hold:
<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> North </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> E/W </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> MP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> QTx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> JT9xx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> A87x </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> x </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->
What do you bid?
1♣ - 1♥
1♠ - ?
You hold:
<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> North </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> E/W </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> MP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> QTx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> JT9xx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> A87x </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> x </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->
What do you bid?
Is this a companion hand to:
♠J1086
♥K106
♦8
♣AKJ106
from another thread? I guess it can't quite be.
No, as I said, he had a 4-3-2-4, no 4-3-1-5. Btw, it's a hand played f2f and probably nobody reads this forum except me...
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#33
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2005-March-23, 13:27
TimG, on Mar 23 2005, 05:21 PM, said:
hrothgar, on Mar 17 2005, 10:11 PM, said:
The original post explictly noted that 1♠ is non-forcing
Partner doesn't have a balanced 18-19 count.
Partner doesn't have a balanced 18-19 count.
How does the non-forcing nature of 1♠ preclude the possibility of 18-19 balanced?
I think with 18-19 they'll bid 2NT and find a ♠ fit using checkback stayman...
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe