kgr Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 [hv=d=e&s=sxxhdktxxxcaqjxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP(2C)-??2C=Weak with 6cH or any GF[/hv]What do you bid?(Your partner will take the 2C bid as a weak Heart, and take 2NT as 15-17 with stops, 3NT to play, 4NT as minors...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 3♣ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 3C. Would bid more over a strong 2C, but RHO might be weak here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 [hv=d=e&s=sxxhdktxxxcaqjxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP(2C)-??2C=Weak with 6cH or any GF[/hv]What do you bid?(Your partner will take the 2C bid as a weak Heart, and take 2NT as 15-17 with stops, 3NT to play, 4NT as minors...) 3♣ = 10, assuming that this shows less high card strength than delayed competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 3 ♣, the alternative to pass and bid NT later to show a minor two suiter is worse because the clubs are so much stronger then the diamonds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 3♣ = 10, assuming that this shows less high card strength than delayed competition. That's an unusual assumption. I'd assume that my methods were the same as those over a weak 2♥, with 2♥ taking the place of a takeout double. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 3♣ = 10, assuming that this shows less high card strength than delayed competition. That's an unusual assumption. I'd assume that my methods were the same as those over a weak 2♥, with 2♥ taking the place of a takeout double. Why wouldn't double be takeout? If 2♥ is conventional, I'd expect Michaels, myself. But, I think there is good cause for 2♥ being natural, and more of a preemptive hand. Which could be funny, if two weak two heart openings are present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_h Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 Agree with the crowd 3C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 Why wouldn't double be takeout? If 2♥ is conventional, I'd expect Michaels, myself. I usually do that, but it seems not to be the default where I live. What I found unusual was that you assume that a pass followed by action is stronger than immediate action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgr Posted July 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 [hv=n=saxxxhaxdqxxxcktx&s=sxxhdktxxxcaqjxxx]133|200|[/hv](2♣!)-4NT-(5♥)-6♦All pass♦'s were 2-2 and 6♦ made.Partner thought I was too weak for 4NT and you seem to agree B) It would have been more clear over a 2♥ opening, but probably I was too much influenced by the first sight of the 2♣ opening...Or is it also no 4NT over a strong 2♣ opening? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effervesce Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 <!-- NORTHSOUTH begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> ????? </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> ???? </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> Unknown </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table border='1'> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> Axxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> Ax </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> Qxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> KTx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> xx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> KTxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> AQJxxx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table><!-- NORTHSOUTH end -->(2♣!)-4NT-(5♥)-6♦All pass♦'s were 2-2 and 6♦ made.Partner thought I was too weak for 4NT and you seem to agree B) It would have been more clear over a 2♥ opening, but probably I was too much influenced by the first sight of the 2♣ opening...Or is it also no 4NT over a strong 2♣ opening? Personally, 4NT was my first thought too. It's not like you weren't going to bid to 5m anyway. What was the vul? At IMPs 3♣ then 4NT showing this 6-5 could be a better route, but this is MPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgr Posted July 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 Personally, 4NT was my first thought too. It's not like you weren't going to bid to 5m anyway. What was the vul? At IMPs 3♣ then 4NT showing this 6-5 could be a better route, but this is MPs.We were Red, don't remember opps color Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 What I found unusual was that you assume that a pass followed by action is stronger than immediate action. Huh? You inferred this from my two character statement "3♣"? I'm simply stating that I would bid 3♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 What I found unusual was that you assume that a pass followed by action is stronger than immediate action. Huh? You inferred this from my two character statement "3♣"? I'm simply stating that I would bid 3♣. Sorry - I got confused about whose post I'd been nitpicking. What I found unusual was that Nigel assumed that a pass followed by action was stronger than immediate action. 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.