kfay Posted June 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 do u remember what his partner had? was that an obvious pass over 1♠, just curious. I think partner had 4 spades and the ♣Q. Not much else of interest. 3 diamonds. If this is supposed to be some argument against why partner has a bad pass you're looking in a bad spot. Partner has their pass and then some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 I am a very, very conserative 2♣ opener, and I would open 1♦ if my long suits were the minors. But with spades as my main suit, this is easy for me. I play, as do many but far from most, that 2♥ is an immediate second negative, which makes this borderline if my highest suit was hearts, but with spades, the risk of jamming myself after 2♣ is far less than the risk of playing 1♠ cold for slam in my second suit. I wouldn't worry too much about missing a spade slam..... unless partner is old-school about responding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricK Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Presumably this was systemic for the pair in question, and presumably they do also use 2♣ for some strong hands. So it is not enough to consider just the chances of languishing in the wrong contract on this hand type, but also the potential benefits their more restrictive approach enjoys when one of the hands they would open 2♣ turns up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Why do you presume that this was systemic for the pair in question? I doubt that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 The partner had 4 spades to the nine (spades 2-2) and doubleton's in both red suits (diamonds 3-3). So pull trumps and two ruffs did it. Also had Qxxxx of clubs... so the hand opposite was something like this...(don't remember all the spots)... [hv=s=s9xxxhxxdxxcqxxxx]133|100|[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricK Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Why do you presume that this was systemic for the pair in question? I doubt that. Because if it wasn't, why would he have done it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 The partner had 4 spades to the nine (spades 2-2) and doubleton's in both red suits (diamonds 3-3). So pull trumps and two ruffs did it. Also had Qxxxx of clubs... so the hand opposite was something like this...(don't remember all the spots)... [hv=s=s9xxxhxxdxxcqxxxx]133|100|[/hv] Just making the point that even if people think this hand should respond, it could have been a diamond fit instead of a spade fit (which would make the opponents even less likely to save you). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babalu1997 Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Actually everyone else is in 6♠. I think this happens to be quite a good argument against it. Seriously if you think this is an argument for why 1♠ is the correct opening I don't think you've understood this thread at all. well there are also many many hands where i am 1 sapdes making 3 and everyone else in 4s down 1, so i get the score back, on average. i am no expert but happen to play that as a system bid. and no this 6s thing has never happned to me-- in fact i mostly get crappy hands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Why do you presume that this was systemic for the pair in question? I doubt that. Because if it wasn't, why would he have done it? I play bridge with Richard. I know he is prone to open some hands 4M that should systemically be opened something else. That is, he deviates from systemic agreement from time to time. I suspect this is not unusual in other partnerships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Sometimes people make mistakes. I know I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricK Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Unless it was a systemic agreement, what exactly is the point of this thread? If it was a mistake - a slip of the hand/tongue/brain - it is obviously irrelevant. If it was just a flight of fancy ("let's see what happens if I open this at the one level, instead of the normal 2♣"), then we can comment on how unlucky he was to try it on this hand; but I don't think we can say that trying an experiment is either right or wrong (as long as partner accepts that you sometimes do it, or the game you are playing in is purely for fun). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Why do you presume that this was systemic for the pair in question? I doubt that. Because if it wasn't, why would he have done it? Because he is crazy and takes a good idea of not opening 2C with 2 suiters for fear of preemption way too far? A lot of people are not so good at bridge and have crazy ideas! edit: OK read above, probably because the player in question was an expert and OP was not, so he wanted to see if he should indeed not open 2C with these hands or not. In fact OP said as much later on. I agree in general with not calling out players by name when they make mistakes, but whatever some people don't share that opinion :D 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.