cherdano Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 I read about this hand before I fell asleep, and it still looks interesting after I woke up.[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sth9863dqj6cak863]133|100|Scoring: IMP(1♣)-P-(1♥)-P(2♥)-X-(P)-?[/hv]What would you have decided if you had been in my place at the t...if you had dreamt about it? (You have enough monkey options to choose from.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Partner has either a (4432) hand with short hearts or a 4144 hand. Since we are red at IMPs I would play partner for actually having a good hand so I guess I'd bid 5♣ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 We actually 'know' a lot about this hand, by inference. We assume that partner has reasonable values.. certainly enough to sustain a 1-level overcall, so he almost certainly lacks 5+ spades... and if he had 5 with too poor a suit to overcall, he'd probably choose 2♠ rather than double. Similar but less secure inferences pertain to the diamond suit. Partner is less inclined to stretch to bid 1♦ over 1♣, but his silence at that point argues that the odds favour only a 4 card diamond suit or a weak 5 carder. This means that spades are probably 4=4=4=1 around the table. It seems to me that the most likely fit for us is a 5-3 or even a 5-4 club fit. So I bid 3♣. I expect partner to be 4=1=4=4 or 4=1=5=3 most of the time. In fact, while I sure am not betting on it even if given good odds, I wouldn't be astounded to find 4=0=4=5 :) LHO being 4=4=2=3, and RHO 4=5=4=0. If we have game, it is probably 5♣, since he needs a good hand for game to make and then he won't have a 5 card pointed suit. But he might be a moderate 4=1=5=3 for example, and I don't like the odds of game on most of those constructions: diamonds may be 4-1, as may trumps. I think I bid 4♣.... may be too high on some hands, but 3♣ just isn't enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Pard has short hearts, doesn't have 5 spades and probably doesn't have 5 diamonds. He has a reason to enter a live auction, so I expect a decent hand. It's even possible pard has 5♣'s here (6 if 1♣ is 2+). The short spades are nice, and there's no wastage in hearts. We have a great hand. I'm starting with 3♥, and I'll probably push this to 5♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 The opponents opened one club. My partner had a wide open space to show almost anything. He didn't. I'll go with 4♣. 3♥ is effectively game forcing, and that's too rich for my blood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 5c I am going to play partner for:Axxx...x....AT9x...QJ9x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 4♣ seems perfect to me. No need to punish partner who could be a bit light in this situation. Even if we only have two losers off the top, it may prove difficult to take care of all the hearts in our hand. Keep in mind you know already that diamonds are not breaking if partner has four of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 agree with 4C, how much lighter would we bid 4C with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 I think i have ruined your poll. I was going to bid 4♣ but i hadn't noticed that the opening was 1♣. Then having thought about it decided that it was right to bid clubs anyway ... ... but forgot to jump. So I voted 3♣ but really meant 4♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 I'm sure I will be shot for this comment, but what about 2NT minors, then 4♣ over whatever partner bids? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 I'm sure I will be shot for this comment, but what about 2NT minors, then 4♣ over whatever partner bids? I love the thought process of an idea like that, but I hate actually doing stuff like that (by which I mean initially lying about my hand as part of a 2+ step process that I think will help partner judge.) For example, maybe it continues 3♠ P P and you bid 4♣, and now partner - Thinks you have both minors- Thinks you have merely taken the push under pressure but didn't intend to invite so he has both your shape and strength wrong. I like to just give a good description all at once when possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sambolino Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 5c I am going to play partner for:Axxx...x....AT9x...QJ9xthen you better bid six cos 5 is 100% i think at vul imps one must bid 5c,,, well maybe not if you expect superfrequent 3 card supps from opps (which is rare in my environment). could take very little to make slam too so if i'm sure what pd and i are doing i may bid 3h as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sambolino Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 also if pd has bunch of useless spade points he may have made an overcall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeegan Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 B) 3♣.This hand seems pretty much a read out: pard has at least 4-1-5-3 or 4-1-4-4 shape with some useful cards (maybe he has better distribution, but that will come out in the wash once I jump in the auction). I see a good chance to make 10 tricks in clubs (or even diamonds) almost regardless of how minimal pard's hand, but our prospects are far from certain - nine tricks could easily be our limit (pard has four spades, and I can lead up to them only once). I see no reason to bid more than necessary at this juncture since pard will come alive with the kind of special hand we are hoping he has (odds are against his holding this, however). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted February 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 I will report on the old MSC vote on this one tomorrow night when I am back home. Meanwhile, are we 100% certain that partner isn't 4252? What if the minors were switched, the auction going 1D 1H 2H X, could partner be 4225? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 I will report on the old MSC vote on this one tomorrow night when I am back home. Meanwhile, are we 100% certain that partner isn't 4252? What if the minors were switched, the auction going 1D 1H 2H X, could partner be 4225? It's possible and probably should be considered by people. But it's a big parlay of partner not overcalling 1♦ on a hand with fair values and the opponents raising hearts with seven of them, both of which are possible but neither of which are relatively likely, and in combination all the less likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Yes I am 100 % sure partner cannot pass 1C and then X with 5 diamonds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 I voted 3C. Thankfully I seem to be on the same planet as potential partners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted February 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 This is a MSC problem (November 1983). In a panel of 32, there were 9 votes for 3♣, 5 (!) votes for 3♦, 6 votes for 3♥, 10 votes for 4♣, and one vote for 5♣.Director was Eric Kokish; apparently a little less restrained then compared to today, he argued vehemently for driving to game.Given that partner won't be able judge well (he doesn't know to downgrade spade honors and upgrade diamond honors), and that even Kxxx x AKxx xxxx offers some (bad) play for game, maybe 4♣ is not enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchiu Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 3♥. Fortunately, I don't live on the same planet as the 3♣, wtp? crowd. By the way, Han, the animal of choice has changed to LEMURS, since Ken Rexford scared away a statistically significant portion of the monkey subjects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 I believe you Jason, when it comes to monkeys I always believe you. :P (not sure what I had to do with it but this was such an open door) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 This is a MSC problem (November 1983). In a panel of 32, there were 9 votes for 3♣, 5 (!) votes for 3♦, 6 votes for 3♥, 10 votes for 4♣, and one vote for 5♣. Put an ! next to 3♣ too. That is a HUGE underbid with this hand. I can buy 4♣ as being right though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 I usually buy the arguments from the moderator in the MSC. I think that they consider the problem a lot more carefully than the panel. I probably have this hand in my mental database if its from a 1983 BW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 lol wish I played in 1983 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 lol wish I played in 1983 1st duplicate game was Thursday, January 3, 1980 with my Mom. I was 16 and a junior in high school. We didn't do so hot. :lol: By 1983, I was in deep immersion and reading everything I could get my hands on. 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.