5-v-1-7

[kgr]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skqj93hdkckjt9532]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

You open 1C and the bidding continues:

1C-(1H)-P-(2H)

2S-(3D)-DBL-(3H)

3S-(P)-p-(4H)

??

-----

- Do you agree with the bidding so far?

- What do you call now?

- North's DBL didn't make any sense. Would your answers have been different without the DBL of North?

[flytoox]

I think you have already bid out your shape. It is time to hear pd's opinion.

[pbleighton]

"I think you have already bid out your shape. It is time to hear pd's opinion"

 

I agree.

 

Peter

[whereagles]

Pard passed 4♥ after I have shown a 65?? Wierd. I say he still got some clubs for me. 5♣ it is.

[the hog]

Hate the bidding. I would have bid 4S over the 2H intervention. Surely my reason for opening 1C rather than 1S is that I am prepared to bid S to a very high level when the bidding returns to me.

[mikestar]

Hate the bidding. I would have bid 4S over the 2H intervention. Surely my reason for opening 1C rather than 1S is that I am prepared to bid S to a very high level when the bidding returns to me.

Agree 100%--no other choice in competition. 1♣ followed by 4♠ over a 1 red suit or 1NT response in a non competetive auction isn't bad: this should show extreme shape but minimum high cards--partner can look for slam with aces and pass 4♠ or correct to 5♣ otherwise.

[kgr]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sthjt753dt764caq6&w=sa82hkq984dqj932c&e=s7654ha62da85c874&s=skqj93hdkckjt9532]399|300|Scoring: IMP

1C-(1H)-P-(2H)

2S-(3D)-DBL-(3H)

3S-(P)-P-(4H)

4S-(DBL)[/hv]

Play:

H lead ruffed in hand.

SQ for the Ace of West.

D back for the K in hand (Yes!). 4S +2.

[mikeh]

Posts like this, if you are the 4♠ bidder, or are attempting to defend the final outcome, are silly.

 

You show us a ridiculous bidding sequence: one that a pair of intermediates would be ashamed to own up to, add in what has to be truly moronic defence, and then celebrate the great score attained by NS.

 

The hand may have been fun for you to play, but nothing about the way it was bid or defended amounts to playing bridge.

[neilkaz]

Posts like this, if you are the 4♠ bidder, or are attempting to defend the final outcome, are silly.

 

You show us a ridiculous bidding sequence: one that a pair of intermediates would be ashamed to own up to, add in what has to be truly moronic defence, and then celebrate the great score attained by NS.

 

The hand may have been fun for you to play, but nothing about the way it was bid or defended amounts to playing bridge.

I know if I were sitting North I'd have pulled the double to 5♣.

[sceptic]

You show us a ridiculous bidding sequence: one that a pair of intermediates would be ashamed to own up to

 

Mike you have obviously forgot that I post here, I would not be embarassed to own up to this :P)

[Guest Jlall]

Posts like this, if you are the 4♠ bidder, or are attempting to defend the final outcome, are silly.

 

You show us a ridiculous bidding sequence: one that a pair of intermediates would be ashamed to own up to, add in what has to be truly moronic defence, and then celebrate the great score attained by NS.

 

The hand may have been fun for you to play, but nothing about the way it was bid or defended amounts to playing bridge.

I know if I were sitting North I'd have pulled the double to 5♣.

You would have never got the chance since you would have bid 5C over 3S :P

 

As for souths second bid 4S seems like too much and 2S seems like too little, I think 3S would have been just right.

[mikeh]

You show us a ridiculous bidding sequence: one that a pair of intermediates would be ashamed to own up to

 

Mike you have obviously forgot that I post here, I would not be embarassed to own up to this :P)

lol. But i suspect that, as North, you would, at some point, have mentioned your AQx of ♣s... and not have passed in a known 5-1 fit rather than play a certain 6-3.

[kgr]

Posts like this, if you are the 4♠ bidder, or are attempting to defend the final outcome, are silly.

 

You show us a ridiculous bidding sequence: one that a pair of intermediates would be ashamed to own up to, add in what has to be truly moronic defence, and then celebrate the great score attained by NS.

 

The hand may have been fun for you to play, but nothing about the way it was bid or defended amounts to playing bridge.

I didn't want to prove anything. I simply try to learn from my mistakes. I'm not an expert, so I accept that I make mistakes but I want to learn something from it.

(I wondered if it is not better to bid 4C iso 3S, allowing me to better describe my hand with 4S later).

[csdenmark]

Dealer: South Vul: N/S Scoring: IMP

♠ T ♥ JT753 ♦ T764 ♣ AQ6 ♠ A82 ♥ KQ984 ♦ QJ932 ♣ [space] ♠ 7654 ♥ A62 ♦ A85 ♣ 874 ♠ KQJ93 ♥ [space] ♦ K ♣ KJT9532

1C-(1H)-P-(2H) 2S-(3D)-DBL-(3H) 3S-(P)-P-(4H) 4S-(DBL)

Play:

H lead ruffed in hand.

SQ for the Ace of West.

D back for the K in hand (Yes!). 4S +2.

Even the opening is right of course I prefer to open such hands in MAJOR and force in minor. I think the club contract would have been reached here using that method. With this outcome 4♠+2 DBL I think nobody can rightfully blame declarer in this example.

[HeartA]

I think you have already bid out your shape. It is time to hear pd's opinion.

totally agree.

[HeartA]

Posts like this, if you are the 4♠ bidder, or are attempting to defend the final outcome, are silly.

 

You show us a ridiculous bidding sequence: one that a pair of intermediates would be ashamed to own up to, add in what has to be truly moronic defence, and then celebrate the great score attained by NS.

 

The hand may have been fun for you to play, but nothing about the way it was bid or defended amounts to playing bridge.

Words are harsh, but I have to agree.

[jdeegan]

<_< Most advanced and expert players will advise you that 7-5 hands should be played in the seven bagger unless partner has four card support for the five bagger. It's a matter of getting tapped out, because a 4-1 trump split is more than 50% on freak hands.

[kgr]

Posts like this, if you are the 4♠ bidder, or are attempting to defend the final outcome, are silly.

 

You show us a ridiculous bidding sequence: one that a pair of intermediates would be ashamed to own up to, add in what has to be truly moronic defence, and then celebrate the great score attained by NS.

 

The hand may have been fun for you to play, but nothing about the way it was bid or defended amounts to playing bridge.

Words are harsh, but I have to agree.

Let me add to this that I'm always looking forward to replys of Mikeh because they are always very instructive...

But I was VERY dissapointed by this post. I only posted the hand and result because it was asked some time ago by posters to see the actual hands.

I was really not attempting to try to defend the actions. I make mistakes and I'm not ashamed of that. Like I said before I'm not an expert.

...But if you think that I had the idea that we reached the best contract here and played it well then you are underestimating me.

[whereagles]

kgr, people here are clearly missing the main point:

 

with a 75, I'M PLAYING THE HAND, PERIOD :P

[mikeh]

Let me add to this that I'm always looking forward to replys of Mikeh because they are always very instructive...

But I was VERY dissapointed by this post. I only posted the hand and result because it was asked some time ago by posters to see the actual hands.

I was really not attempting to try to defend the actions. I make mistakes and I'm not ashamed of that. Like I said before I'm not an expert.

...But if you think that I had the idea that we reached the best contract here and played it well then you are underestimating me.

My apologies. The original post was fine, but then I read what happened, with no disclaimer that it was posted in response to requests, and the 'yes!' comment after the appalling defence, and it seemed to me that this was another one of the rare but annoying self-congratulatory posts we sometimes see... annoying because the bridge was horrible yet the poster seems to think that he was brilliant. I see now that I was mistaken, and my words were overly harsh.