paulg Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 [hv=d=w&v=n&s=sqtht87653dkt3ca5]133|100|Scoring: IMP(Pass) 1♣ - (2♦) - ? (2♦ is weak, you are playing strong NT)[/hv]You are South to call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 Too strong to pass anyway, this is a Lebensohl situation so 2♥ should be nonforcing, and that's what I have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted October 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 Unfortunately I cannot edit the poll, but your methods are that 2♥ is forcing for one round. (This is Bridge World Standard and pretty standard in the UK) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 2♥, forcing, and that's what I have :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 Too strong to pass anyway, this is a Lebensohl situation so 2♥ should be nonforcing, and that's what I have. too assume 2h is nonforcing is a huge assumption....lol in an undiscussed auction. If you think this is standard, please cite why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 I can't believe this sequence is undiscussed by Zia-Rosenberg. Anyway, I bid 2♥ whether it's forcing or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 me too :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 I maybe will loose this board but I am in good companion when I pass with this weak suit. No the "good companion" is not in this forum (so far) but it had been at the BB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 double Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcphee Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 100 % 2H call. Where the "this should be NF" idea comes from I do not know. It would be NF if you play negative free bids only. This also has nothing to do with lebensohl although it is a lebensohl position, it only becomes that way if we pass and partner re-opens with double, at which point you have various weak or stronger bids available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 2H It's a poor suit, but there are six of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 2H, but i was expecting the poll options to be "Yes" and "No" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 Tough call, both pass and 2♥ seem reasonable, nothing else comes to mind. I'll go with pass, planning to jump to 3♥ over a reopening double. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vang Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 on this, my personal pref is for 2H (forcing one round). i'll balance with Rosenberg's cards anyway despite xxx in diamonds (he had two AK). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 i pass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 Yea Mat me too... But the question Do I need to bid now? has a similar answer to the one in the title of the thread: no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegill Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 2♥. If I pass and it goes 3♦ p p or 4♦ p p (and why shouldn't it, they are favorable), I'm going to want to vomit all over my shoes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 2♥. If I pass and it goes 3♦ p p or 4♦ p p (and why shouldn't it, they are favorable), I'm going to want to vomit all over my shoes.What a pessimist B) What are the odds that LHO can bounce in diamonds when I hold K10x?? If he does, isn't our side allowed to bid? And think how partner is going to evaluate his hand if we bid 2♥ and LHO bounces! Will he play us for a topless suit and a working 6 count? I hope not, not in a real partnership. Frankly, if LHO bounces, I am actually happy I passed. If they bid 4♦, partner may well be able to double to announce a big hand with shortness in ♦s. If he passes, I can still bid 4♥, which is a closer description of my hand than an immediate 2♥, and is justified by knowledge of the diamond shortness (yes, partner could be 4=2=1=6, for example, but bidding 2♥ over 2♦ isn't going to make for a much happier auction, and the odds favour catching 3+ card support once he is known to be short in diamonds) If they bid 5♦, then I double... Sometimes it will be wrong, but at least I avoid reaching either 5 or 6♥ when those contracts don't make, and that risk is extremely high if partner holds the ♦ void suggested by a 5♦ call. No, my puking comes when I bid 2♥ and then have the opps bounce, especially to the 5 level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted October 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 Zia passed, as did Rosenberg holding ♠AKxx ♥AKx ♦xxx ♣xxx, so they missed an easy vulnerable game. Gower made 5 tricks in 2♦. Naturally this came in for a fair amount of criticism from the commentators. However Zia/Rosenberg are in the final and the commentators will still be commentating :) To me it looks a hairline decision but the game is good. I'd say the decision is Zia's to make as I'd pass with Rosenberg's hand. Part of the credit should certainly go to Gower for his 5-card weak jump overcall. In the other room Cope (South Africa) opened a 14+-17 1NT and South just bid the heart game directly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegill Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 If you hold Kxxx AJxx x Kxxx and you open 1♣ in 2nd unfav, LHO bids 2♦ and RHO raises to 3♦, are you really going to x? Partner couldn't make a negative X, bid 2M, which doesn't show the world's fair, nor could he raise clubs or even bid 2NT, all of which he would do aggressively since it's red IMPs. Maybe my judgment is way off here, but it seems like you would pass 3♦ and quickly. Heck, even make the hand Kxx AJxx xx Kxxx and 4♥ is just as cold. They could easily be raising to the 3-level at fav with only 8 trumps, or to the 4-level with only 9. I'm not saying bidding 2♥ can't go wrong, I just think that you're going to get talked out of a bunch of red games if you pass with Zia's hand. But then, not suprisingly, I'm not Zia so what do I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 Nice wjo, opps. Next hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sathyab Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 Naturally this came in for a fair amount of criticism from the commentators. However Zia/Rosenberg are in the final and the commentators will still be commentating :) Yeah, they crushed their opponents by all of 8 IMPs. If they had lost by the same amount, not sure what Zia and R'berg would be doing, but the commentators would still be commentating, wouldn't they be? By the same token, South Africans got to an atrociously bad slam against Italy in the QF, the one that came home because Queen of hearts was doubelton and declarer got two picthes holding AK tight opposite JTxx. The commentators were unanimous in declaring that the slam was too lucy for words. SA did get to the semi-fianls. Does the result make that a good slam ? Quite of a few of the commentators are very good/great players in their own right and sharp analysts of the game. Their criticism of an individual bid/play/defense is fairly objective for the most part and it should be taken as such, not tainted by result'ing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 2♥ for me. Not close. I would pass then jump to 3♥ over a reopening double on the king of diamonds less. I have watched about half the boards SA played against Italy and USA1. I think they are not receiving enough credit for the aggressive preempting style, which coaxed both those teams into a number of incorrect decisions and inferior contracts. They were preempting left and right on hands that Italy wasn't and it was consistently working well, so good for them. I'm certainly not saying they are a better team or even close, but I am not joining the "SA was just lucky" parade by any means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 I would have passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Naturally this came in for a fair amount of criticism from the commentators. However Zia/Rosenberg are in the final and the commentators will still be commentating :) Yeah, they crushed their opponents by all of 8 IMPs. If they had lost by the same amount, not sure what Zia and R'berg would be doing, but the commentators would still be commentating, wouldn't they be? By the same token, South Africans got to an atrociously bad slam against Italy in the QF, the one that came home because Queen of hearts was doubelton and declarer got two picthes holding AK tight opposite JTxx. The commentators were unanimous in declaring that the slam was too lucy for words. SA did get to the semi-fianls. Does the result make that a good slam ? Quite of a few of the commentators are very good/great players in their own right and sharp analysts of the game. Their criticism of an individual bid/play/defense is fairly objective for the most part and it should be taken as such, not tainted by result'ing. The ACBL Bulletin ran an article some time ago with a number of experts (of varying levels of expertise, but all 'names' within the ACBL world) giving advice on how to play against teams that rate to beat you. The advice was mostly trite, but maybe I'm jaundiced by old age and having read this kind of thing many years ago in a book I think was entitled 'How to win at teams' or something similar. Anyway, the point on which I think all agree is that you are not going to beat a team, on which every player is at least as good as your best player, by playing it straight. The opps will simply destroy you in a long match. If you consistently bid as well as they do (which you won't, by definition) they will out-declare you and out-defend you. You have to mix it up. You have to make slightly off-beat decisions and hope that this day your 47% choices will beat their 53% choices (no need for the choices to add to 100, btw). So you swing, but you pick your spots. You slightly overbid on a preempt or push for a slam that is doubtful on your cards (and may be worse on partner's). So the SA's appear to have adopted that attitude, combined with steady card play. Plus, from what I heard (not from what saw) some of the Italians didn't bring their A game.. but who does, every session? More power to SA, and very well done. Their example... damn near getting to the finals of the BB by beating and almost beating arguably the best two teams in the event... should encourage us all.. while showing us how to handle ourselves when technically outgunned. I didn't see a lot of hands (the time zone issue is brutual for the 2nd and 3rd segments for me), but what I saw didn't suggest they went nuts and thus got 'incredibly' lucky in either match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.