jdonn Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 R/W, imps, RHO deals xx Axxx xx QTxxx 1♦ - P - 1NT - 2♠3♦ - P - P - DBL P - ??? 3♥? 3♠? 4♣? 4♦? something even higher? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 given hand has 14 cards. So my call woud be to call director. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted December 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Edited: Meant to be 2425. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 If 4♦ is a Choice of Games Cue, thats my call. Otherwise a tentative 4♥. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Interesting hand. I think that it is unlikely that partner has 4♥s, unless he has 6♠s, and even then it isn't clear that he'd chance a double, unprepared for clubs (I suppose he could be 6=4=0=3). I think he is most commonly going to be 6=3=1=3, and I expect that the 3-3 heart break is far more likely than a priori percentages suggest... I'd place the chances of such a break at around 60-70%. But I am going to have problems with entries to my hand to draw trump in hearts, after dummy gets tapped, and if he has weakish hearts, maybe he can pitch his heart losers on my clubs: picture AKxxxx Kxx x Axx... with the club King onside, and spades 3-2, he avoids the heart loser playing in spades. While in hearts, even with a 3-3 break, I have handling problems. So I opt for 4♠. No guarantees.. he doesn't need the hand I gave him, not to mention that even opposite that hand, clubs may sit foul... but he could have an even better hand (imagine AKxxxx Kxx x AJx), so I can hardly not bid game at imps, red. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Why does everyone assume that this hand, with an Ace and a Queen, is going to produce a game? Partner's first bid was a nonforcing 2♠ overcall. You certainly did not envision game when he overcalled 2♠. Now the opps have settled in 3♦ and partner balances with a double. So you are going to hang partner for assuming that you had some values? Yes, this is IMPs, and yes, you are red against white. Still, a double part score swing is 6 IMPs. Nothing to be ignored. Partner should have a good hand with diamond shortness - 6313 is certainly a possibility, but I would not rule out 5413 or 6412. A simple 3♠ bid is certainly sufficient on this auction. Second choice - 3♥ (partner did not deny holding 4 hearts when he overcalled 2♠). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Why does everyone assume that this hand, with an Ace and a Queen, is going to produce a game? Partner's first bid was a nonforcing 2♠ overcall. You certainly did not envision game when he overcalled 2♠. Now the opps have settled in 3♦ and partner balances with a double. So you are going to hang partner for assuming that you had some values? Yes, this is IMPs, and yes, you are red against white. Still, a double part score swing is 6 IMPs. Nothing to be ignored. Partner should have a good hand with diamond shortness - 6313 is certainly a possibility, but I would not rule out 5413 or 6412. A simple 3♠ bid is certainly sufficient on this auction. Second choice - 3♥ (partner did not deny holding 4 hearts when he overcalled 2♠).Of course I did not envision game when he bid 2♠, but I did envision that we might make 170 if it went all pass. The point is that 2♠ is wide range... I want my partners bidding it on 6 chunky spades and a side card, since I might well be passing 1♦ with a scattered 10-11 count and shortish spades, and be cold for game.. not to mention preempting, getting me to a good lead, etc. Passing over 3♦ (and over 2♠ had rho passed) would be the percentage action because partner was so wide range. Now, however, partner has indicated a GOOD hand in context. Thus the odds of the 170 I envisioned as a possibility when he bid 2♠ have significantly increased: not to the point of being more likely than not, but certainly (in my view) to the point of being close to even. As for 5413, if he held that hand with a mere opener, he should double 1N, not bid 2♠ and then hope to back into hearts later. And if he has a GOOD hand with 5413, again, he should usually double and then decide to raise hearts, if I bid the suit, or introduce spades if feasible. Neither life nor bridge is perfect, but I think bidding game here is reasonable.... and I am a notoriously conservative bidder :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Good bidding problem. Red at IMPs - a major tease here and I do have some empathy for the 3M crowd, but pard has doubled back into this auction, and an Ace and a five card suit are upgrades. I'll bid 4♠ - the 4-3 heart fit potential is a brute and want to get it into our "known" fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted December 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 To 4♠ bidders, why that over 4♦? Won't partner choose spades anyway with 6-3? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 3H I imagine I've got no more than partner is hoping for. Did it mean anything that partner didn't bid 2D? Would that show 54 majors? So he is now 64? Is partner permitted to cater for me passing with his double if I have diamonds and the 1NT oppo has some of my clubs? Anyway, I seem to have a 3H bid followed by pass over 3S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 I also think that, red at imps, we are just worth game (we weren't far off a 3S bid over 3D). But I agree that 4D is best. Yes, partner is not so likely to be 5413. But he might be 5314, and where do you want to play opposite AKJxx QJx x Axxx? (actually the answer to that is probably 4C, but 5C is hardly playless). I don't fully agree with mikeh about the prospects of making game being 50-50, but with the upside of getting to the right strain, I think we are worth 4D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Why does everyone assume that this hand, with an Ace and a Queen, is going to produce a game? Partner's first bid was a nonforcing 2♠ overcall. You certainly did not envision game when he overcalled 2♠. Now the opps have settled in 3♦ and partner balances with a double. So you are going to hang partner for assuming that you had some values? Yes, this is IMPs, and yes, you are red against white. Still, a double part score swing is 6 IMPs. Nothing to be ignored. Partner should have a good hand with diamond shortness - 6313 is certainly a possibility, but I would not rule out 5413 or 6412. A simple 3♠ bid is certainly sufficient on this auction. Second choice - 3♥ (partner did not deny holding 4 hearts when he overcalled 2♠). We have two huge cards and a double / triple fit. We also have zero duplication in the diamond suit. I agree with Mike that 6=3=1=3 is very likely here, but I also think 5=4=1=3 and 5=3=1=4' s are very possible too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Frances, Wouldn't you double 1NT with 5-3-1-4 and 5-4-1-3 to show some clubs by implication? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 I would bid 3♠ at any other vulnerability, but here partner must be a bit more strong, enough to make 4♠ attractive, won't be surprised if this gets doubled for a number Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Pard probably has something like a 5413 or 5314. I'm bidding 4♣ since this virtually guarantees a fit (and if pd has 6412, he'll correct to hearts and I pass). I suppose I could also bid 3♥ and hope for a fit at a lower level, but 4♣ seems safer. Finally, I'm not worried of missing out on 4♥ because it's not certain we have a fit there and the diamond doubleton plus pard's honors behind opener warn game might not be there, even if we values are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 I also think that, red at imps, we are just worth game (we weren't far off a 3S bid over 3D). But I agree that 4D is best. Yes, partner is not so likely to be 5413. But he might be 5314, and where do you want to play opposite AKJxx QJx x Axxx? (actually the answer to that is probably 4C, but 5C is hardly playless). I don't fully agree with mikeh about the prospects of making game being 50-50, but with the upside of getting to the right strain, I think we are worth 4D. I didn't say game was 50-50.. I said it was close to even... I'd place it at between 40 and 50 %... good enough for a red game at imps. I have been convinced that 4♦ is better than 4♠.. As for whereagle's 4♣... I am left (almost) speechless by the idea that partner can correct this call with 6412 :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 I'll also vote 4♦ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Yeah, 4D does keep the 4-4 in view...change my vote too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 As for whereagle's 4♣... I am left (almost) speechless by the idea that partner can correct this call with 6412 :unsure: Well, some people like to dbl on any hand that has a singleton in opps' suit, hoping that pard has stuff stacked over declarer. I'm sure you know what type of player I mean :P Pard may not be of this kind, of course. But since I wasn't told of pard's tendencies, I have to cater for him being bloodlusty.. lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 This seems so easy a 4♦ call that I was surprised that any discussion would occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 ditto...4D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted December 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 As for whereagle's 4♣... I am left (almost) speechless by the idea that partner can correct this call with 6412 :unsure: Well, some people like to dbl on any hand that has a singleton in opps' suit, hoping that pard has stuff stacked over declarer. I'm sure you know what type of player I mean :P Pard may not be of this kind, of course. But since I wasn't told of pard's tendencies, I have to cater for him being bloodlusty.. lol. Sorry, I forgot to mention that this is not the first time partner has played bridge. Now you have full information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 3S, I don't think this hand is so great and partner may have just balanced light. I think 6313 or something is more likely than 5413. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 3S, I don't think this hand is so great and partner may have just balanced light. I think 6313 or something is more likely than 5413. Interesting that you think red vs white partner is balancing at imps over 3D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 3S, I don't think this hand is so great and partner may have just balanced light. I think 6313 or something is more likely than 5413. Interesting that you think red vs white partner is balancing at imps over 3D. What? You are afraid of reporting -800 against air? LOL 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.