Cascade Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Dealer: South Vul: None Scoring: IMP ♠ AKJ743 ♥ 54 ♦ ♣ K9752 West North East South - - - 1♠ Dbl Pass 2♠ ? Partner could have: Made a negative free bid - usually showing a six-card suit; Or obviously raised spades with any 6+ with three or more card support; Bid 1NT with almost any other 6-9(10); XX with any stronger hand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 3♠, it takes more space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Pass. My partner had a lot of freedom to act over the double and I'm not really interested in this hand with only xx fiit for spades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I definitely act. I think I bid 3♣, that could easily be where our sac is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dicklont Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 3♠It looks like the opps can make a game, maybe a slam.I won't bid 3♣ because I don't want partner to lead them and any declarer would be happy with so much info about the distribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_KARLUK Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Sys?Pass. Opps D and CB shows strength. I can't play at both sides of th table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peachy Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I bid something with this sort of hand. 3S or 3C both look good to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFA Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 3♣. I tend to always get my suits in if possible. 3♠ might make it tougher for the opponents, but maybe we have a club fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dake50 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I try 3S. As I would bid 3S on many shapes, strengths to dare opponents to try X, I don't blab much for them to evaluate 'right' stuff. Take a level away before they find and announce which fit, like that. As little as CQxxx makes 3S-X cheap, let alone CAx with 2xS where C-ruff then SJ finesse makes. I don't know their best bid over 3S so I bid there. Likely their best over 4S is X and they will see that. They are competent to find H-slam, D-slam, just game with 3-level for exploring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 3♣, though I'd really prefer my clubs (and therefore my hand) to be better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 My judgment sucks. I like 3S here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotShot Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I need partners cooperation to get to the best spot, I can only get that if i bid 3♣ now. My partner will know that I have some shape for that bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I admire your faith in your partner, hotshot :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleBerg Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 3♠. When I have a good 6-card suit, and a bad 5-card suit, I don't ask partner to take preference. Actually, this is not a bad spot for incooperating partner with such a hand, but I believe that the extra space 3♠ takes away, makes up for that. I don't feel to strongly that 3♠ is better than 3♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I definitely act. I think I bid 3♣, that could easily be where our sac is. agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
655321 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 3♣ for me too. Agree that bidding is clear, and prefer 3♣ over 3♠ because we might find a big club fit. 3♠ does take up more space, but it won't find a big fit for our side. 3♠ also runs some extra risk of going for a number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I definitely act. I think I bid 3♣, that could easily be where our sac is. Josh, I have always believed there was a category of hands where a bridge player with natural talent will feel that it is right to act but there is no good action to take. That's how this hand is to me - I would like to act but don't see any reason to bid 3C and get the doubling started in search of a nebulous club sacrifice that may be a phantom or too expensive or non-existent - and unless we have an unlikely big (at least 9 card) spade fit, we aren't going to like spades real well, either. What is your take on why you are bidding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Josh,I'll take it as a compliment you chose me out of all who answered similarly. :) I'll answer as best I can. I have always believed there was a category of hands where a bridge player with natural talent will feel that it is right to act but there is no good action to take. That's how this hand is to me - Isn't that in direct contradiction to your first reply that said "I'm not really interested in this hand"? Well anyway... I would like to act but don't see any reason to bid 3C and get the doubling started in search of a nebulous club sacrifice that may be a phantom or too expensive or non-existentQuestions:Why is a club sacrifice "nebulous"? It looks to me like that's just a meaningless buzzword you toss in to support your argument.Why are you worried partner will take a sacrifice if it's a phantom?Why are you worried partner will take a sacrifice if it's too expensive?(Nothing to ask about non-existant, that is simply a redundancy that combines 'phantom' with 'too expensive', since in either case a [good] club sacrifice is non-existent.) - and unless we have an unlikely big (at least 9 card) spade fit, we aren't going to like spades real well, either.Sure the odds of us taking a sacrifice in spades are slim to none. But at least it gives us another out at the 3 level in case we are already in danger. What is your take on why you are bidding?Why I am bidding at all? (As opposed to why I am bidding 3♣ in particular, which I already said is because we may have a sacrifice?) Because auctions become far far more difficult for them when you get in the way. Think of all the possible misunderstandings and confusion this could introduce for them, and keep in mind these are for a bid that don't even take up any space. - Opener passes. One of them think it shows a minimum, the other thinks it could be extras since they are in a force. They may overbid or underbid or make a bad double of our contract, depending who believes what.- Opener doubles. One of them thinks it shows extras with clubs, the other thinks it could be a minimum with good clubs, or one of them thinks it shows generic extras, or one of them thinks it shows extras with length in the red suits, or one of them thinks it shows balanced extras. They may overbid or underbid or end up in the wrong suit make a bad double of our contract, depending who believes what.- Opener bids 3♦. One of them believes it shows extras, the other believes it doesn't. Again they reach the wrong contract.- Opener bids 4♣. One thinks it's natural, one thinks it's just a strength showing cuebid. Good luck opponents!- They don't have a true misunderstanding, but my show of 'strength' causes each of them to downgrade mild extras and miss a good slam.- There is still a reasonable preemptive effect. Maybe partner bids 3♠ and gets in the way of RHO. Most good bridge players would look at that list and say, at least of the misunderstandings, "that would never happen to me." But time after time, and often in very subtle ways, it does happen to even very good players. Auctions are simply tougher when the opponents keep getting in the way. I won't pretend bidding is particularly safe, but so many good things can happen that I am honestly not very worried at all. I would say it's impossible to be very successful at bridge if you spend all your time being focused on the negative. Think of all these little bids as jabs in boxing. To fans they might seem like they don't do very much. But they blind and daze and confuse and irritate the opponent just a little, enough to make him a little less effective in some ways that aren't very obvious at all by just throwing his timing off. And sure I could get hit with a big punch for that slight moment I leave my face open, but it is just a moment, so he is very likely to misjudge and leave his open even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianshark Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Seems like a normal 3♣ to me. Show what we have and let partner have some input rather than the master-minding 3♠ bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 3C looks fairly normal here. But a question for you - what do you think 4C should show? Does it still show a very good hand, or should it be more pre-emptive in nature? I have an agreement that 1minor P P action 3minor is "weak" (i.e. lots of playing strength but short in high cards). I haven't discussed this particular auction, but if I had, say, AKxxxxx-KJ10xxx I'd really want to bid 4C here without partner thinking I've shown AKQxxxx-AKJxxx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 I would have thought "3♣ WTP?" Then I saw that many consider it to be a problem. So I will just say 3♣ and leave off the WTP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 I definitely act. I think I bid 3♣, that could easily be where our sac is. agreed Agree with mike Given that they didn't wanna bid a suit yet, 4♣ is an alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 3♣. Helps pard determine what's going on. I tend to agree with Frances that 4♣ should have a bit more body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 I have an agreement that 1minor P P action 3minor is "weak" (i.e. lots of playing strength but short in high cards). I haven't discussed this particular auction, but if I had, say, AKxxxxx-KJ10xxx I'd really want to bid 4C here without partner thinking I've shown AKQxxxx-AKJxxx I understand your general point, but wow that second hand must be too strong for 4♣ under any definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 I have an agreement that 1minor P P action 3minor is "weak" (i.e. lots of playing strength but short in high cards). I haven't discussed this particular auction, but if I had, say, AKxxxxx-KJ10xxx I'd really want to bid 4C here without partner thinking I've shown AKQxxxx-AKJxxx I understand your general point, but wow that second hand must be too strong for 4♣ under any definition. OK, bad example. My general point is:Should 4C here be more a pre-emptive type call based on lots of shape, or should it be a genuinely good hand? 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.