gwnn Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 KxxKJxxxKxAxx we're red vs white at mp's, pd deals. 2♠-x-? what's your plan? would you bid differently if partner were extremely disciplined/extremely frisky? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Definitely 4♠, unless partner is extremely aggressive, then I would bid ogust and then game over anything except bad/bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted February 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Oh yes, it's MP's. Does that change your decision? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Oh yes, it's MP's. Does that change it? nope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I sort of want to redouble or trap pass here. They might play in a minor in which case 4♠ looks so much better, though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 4 ♠ KISS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewj Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Yes, easy peasy 4♠ at these colours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 4♠. If partner pre-empted Jxxxx xx Jxx QJx then this might convince him not to do it again :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I don't have the courage to bid 3NT. 4♠ it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 4♠. If partner pre-empted Jxxxx xx Jxx QJx then this might convince him not to do it again :rolleyes: And what if he opened 2S on AQJxxxxQxxxxx ? It depends a bit on what you think a minimum and maximum 2S bid looks like, but I think I have an invite, in whatever methods I play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 4♠. If partner pre-empted Jxxxx xx Jxx QJx then this might convince him not to do it again :rolleyes: And what if he opened 2S on AQJxxxxQxxxxx ? It depends a bit on what you think a minimum and maximum 2S bid looks like, but I think I have an invite, in whatever methods I play. I agree it's closer to an Invite, but giving them less room to find the 5♦ sac if partner is max is kinda important IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 4♠ over X is a good tactical bid. I would invite over a pass. Direct game bids on good invites are often winners in competition as there is an extra way to win: if they sacrifice, it may be a phantom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 4♠ is certainly reasonable, but if you knew the opponents were going to bid 5♦ would you be happy? As Frances points out, 4♠ is somewhat dependent on partner's club length, however, even if we invite, AQJ/red Q isn't enough for game if pard has ♣xxx. You are certainly getting a club lead unless RHO decides to genius an underlead of a red suit ace, so we are a long way from 10 tricks. On the other hand, if pard has a stiff club, 5♠ looks likely. If we are playing some version of McCabe where 2N can ask for shortness, thats my call. Not playing McCabe, I kind of like a pass here. I might discover if my opponents have clubs which makes bidding 4♠ a lot more appetizing. They'll be a lot of 4♠, wtp, certainly, but i think the problem is deeper than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 4♠ is certainly reasonable, but if you knew the opponents were going to bid 5♦ would you be happy? As Frances points out, 4♠ is somewhat dependent on partner's club length, however, even if we invite, AQJ/red Q isn't enough for game if pard has ♣xxx. You are certainly getting a club lead unless RHO decides to genius an underlead of a red suit ace, so we are a long way from 10 tricks. On the other hand, if pard has a stiff club, 5♠ looks likely. If we are playing some version of McCabe where 2N can ask for shortness, thats my call. Not playing McCabe, I kind of like a pass here. I might discover if my opponents have clubs which makes bidding 4♠ a lot more appetizing. They'll be a lot of 4♠, wtp, certainly, but i think the problem is deeper than that.I would be happy to double 5♦. Yes it is dependent on partner's club length, but I don't see why we are assuming that he has club length with no honor. The king makes 4♠ a great contract (though I suppose it is not really relevant, since partner would probably accept any game try, unless you mastermind a pass and miss game opposite AQxxxx xxx x Kxx), but even the queen can be really useful here so that the doubler can never attack clubs, and the jack works well for this purpose too, or maybe the opening leader just doesn't have a club lead, especially if we don't allow them to bid clubs! On top of this game is probably very good opposite a 7-card spade suit, which is pretty common for a r/w 2♠ bid. It just comes down to the fact that partner has 0-2 clubs slightly more often than 3-4 clubs (but one of the more mathy people on this board can double-check this and tell me I am wrong), and if partner has 3-4 clubs game can still be very good, while if partner has 0-2 clubs you almost certainly want to be there. Since we have no shape ask available, and I don't think it is intelligent to see if the opponents bid clubs since they will usually just bid some number of diamonds which is inconclusive to us or bid Lebensohl which doesn't give us any information but allows them to bid more effectively, we should just make the most likely bid that will work, which is 4♠. Maybe in England this is only worth an invite, I don't know what an English r/w 2♠ bid looks like. However since we have already established that what we are really interested in is the shape, not the quality of hand, I don't think inviting is very logical here unless partner has such a tendency to have a terrible hand that we need to ask about it. Also it is not unusual for me to think about a bidding or play problem for a very long time before giving a one-line response. Sorry that I don't usually type out my entire thought process, but anyway I disagree that this problem is "deep". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I consider this a game force vul and a game invitation not vul. The double on my right does little to change things, since the likelihood my partner is a little weaker when an opponent shows strength is offset by my well placed kings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I consider this a game force vul and a game invitation not vul. The double on my right does little to change things, since the likelihood my partner is a little weaker when an opponent shows strength is offset by my well placed kings. Agreed and I'll bid 4♠ and if the opps sac in 5 lets hope they go off 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldman5757 Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 even frisky P's should be somewhat disciplined R v. W. must bid 4♠ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 4♠ with my regular and recent partners, expecting to make. Unless I find partner with ♣xxx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I bid 4♠ because I can't think of a way to involve partner in a way that causes us to bid only good games and stay low opposite the hand Frances posted, and others on which game is poor. I admit that, at the table, I tend to think 'glass half empty', but somehow my scores are better when I don't. I think an invite here is a glass half empty approach. Even if we had a way to ask about shortness, knowing that partner had or didn't have a stiff club, for example, won't tell us enough about the hand to permit an informed decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pirate22 Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 weak 2's---they are getting more and more abused--- on the hand described if vuln its up to a strength- bid 4 spades--(if u think its the frisky Jxxxxx job bid 3sp/3n/t)------non vuln anything goes esp if opps vulnwith the AQJxxx and shape if vuln 2 spades--if non vuln open 1 spade-do not open 2 spades-walk the dog in a way u have 7 losers, with the Jxxxxx and a bit of shape non vuln v vuln open 2 spades --there is a big differance when we are vuln as opposed to non vuln regards 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.