Cascade Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 [hv=d=n&v=e&s=s10862h1096d1095cak6]133|100|Scoring: IMP1NT (2♦) Pass (Pass)2♠ (Pass) Pass (3♦)Pass (Pass) ? 1NT = 12-14[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Is this a lead problem? ♣A or ♦5, depending on the day :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 I would bid 3 Spade. We can make it, we can fail for lesser then 3 Diamond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleBerg Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 3♠. Highly likely one of the contracts will make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Pass. Bidding only really helps when both 3♦ and 3♠ make. If you believe the Law, this shouldn't happen on this hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASkolnick Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 I bid 3♠ actually because of the law. 1) There certainly is a possiblity you have 17 trumps. It's possible and even likely that partner has 5 trumps, therefore one 3 level bid will make.2) Even if you are down white, unless 3D is down, you are certainly not getting doubled.3) Maybe you push them to 4♦. Too many ways of winning by bidding, and when we are -4 IMPS on this part score, we say my bad and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Passing, so clearcut it's scary. The Law bidders obviously don't believe in the fact that with a 4333 hand there's a downward adjustment to be made, and the losers are completely obscene for us to consider a bid. We have 10 losers opposite a weak NT - a strong NT I might consider bidding, but pard likely has for us 7-8 losers for their opening, and with the fact they will cash two diamonds off the hop and see how the dummy flops, a club shift is nearly automatic. I strongly suspect pard to be 4-4-2-3. Let's give them the best hand we can: AKxx KQxx xx Qxx. That's a decent 14 count, but you're off one likely right on the hop: two diamonds, a trump, and the heart suit is potentially disaster if AJ sits over the KQ, which is probably the case because, they did bid over a weak NT that is constructive in tone. Now, let's give pard their normal junk of AQxx KQJx xx xxx. Not fun at all if the cards are wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 3♠ bidders are misapplying the Law -- the hand requires huge negative adjustments. And are you sure 2♠ promises 5? I think it should, but how will you do in 3♠ on a 4-4 fit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleBerg Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Passing, so clearcut it's scary. The Law bidders obviously don't believe in the fact that with a 4333 hand there's a downward adjustment to be made, and the losers are completely obscene for us to consider a bid. We have 10 losers opposite a weak NT - a strong NT I might consider bidding, but pard likely has for us 7-8 losers for their opening, and with the fact they will cash two diamonds off the hop and see how the dummy flops, a club shift is nearly automatic. I strongly suspect pard to be 4-4-2-3. Let's give them the best hand we can: AKxx KQxx xx Qxx. That's a decent 14 count, but you're off one likely right on the hop: two diamonds, a trump, and the heart suit is potentially disaster if AJ sits over the KQ, which is probably the case because, they did bid over a weak NT that is constructive in tone. Now, let's give pard their normal junk of AQxx KQJx xx xxx. Not fun at all if the cards are wrong.Your example hands looks so much like a a take-out-double, it's scary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Yes, and that's being friendly. Imagine a 4-3-2-4 hand. Now that's potentially worse since clubs will likely be 4-2, diamonds 5-3/6-2, and the heart situation downgrades a bit due to the missing length card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 And if 2♠ is on a five card suit, I'm more cautious than on a 4 carder suit - I'll be having to play a bit from out of my hand. Edit: Helps to read the auction right; thought 3rd seat doubled 2♦ hence the 4-4 major thought. Doesn't change my view that pass is likely right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 I pass. Dwayne's examples aren't relevant (those are doubles), but we our hand is defensive not offensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 There is almost 0 chance that they will compete 4 over 3 on this hand. The most likely results if you bid 3♠ are: - no one can make anything at the 3-level- one side can make 8 tricks and the other side can make 9 tricks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trumpace Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Assuming we have 9 card fit and opps have 8 card fit we have 17 total tricks. Assume the law holds. 1) If 3D goes down, 3S makes, it is 100 vs 140. 2) if 3D makes, 3S is off, -110 vs -50. Bidding 3S seems the right action (assuming no contract is more than 1 off and no doubles appear). Even if 3S is doubled, we might be ok. What am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 4333 shape - downgrade. If the weak NT'er does not have the Q♣, After the first diamond is cashed in theory, switching to clubs is almost mandatory to kill the entries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Assuming we have 9 card fit and opps have 8 card fit we have 17 total tricks. Assume the law holds. 1) If 3D goes down, 3S makes, it is 100 vs 140. 2) if 3D makes, 3S is off, -110 vs -50. Bidding 3S seems the right action (assuming no contract is more than 1 off and no doubles appear). Even if 3S is doubled, we might be ok. What am I missing? I think there are two important factors that your post doesn't address: 1) The scoring is IMPs. At pairs, there might be a fair amount of difference between the +/+ scores, or it might be important to protect the 110 you might have gotten at spades against only 100, or some such consideration, but it's markedly less important here. I'm not saying the 1 & 2 IMP pickups are irrelevant; I'm saying they're less important than they would be at pairs. 2) If there are 17 total tricks, and one of the contracts makes, then the numbers are, clearly correct; however, there's also a decent chance that there AREN'T exactly 17 tricks. The next closest numbers are 16 and 18, and with balanced distribution of points, the most likely scenarios for those two totals would be: Both 3-level contracts are down 1, and both 3-level contracts are making, on the nose. As has been pointed out, there's a strong case to be made for downgrading the LTT analysis. 16 is a lot more likely than 18. Both contracts down 1 turns +100 into -50; you're risking 4 IMPs in that case for the 1 or 2 IMP pickups at issue if there are exactly 17 tricks. Of course, if there are 18 total tricks, the case for bidding is, inversely, even stronger than you present. I find that possibility very remote, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bid_em_up Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 What am I missing? Nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 I think it is strange that there are so many people in this thread referring to the Law and so few people just saying that partner is 5323 most likely (basically always?), which is terrible with our shape, so we have an obvious pass. I think it's worrisome that there are two pages in the advanced/expert forum about the merits of the law of total tricks on a hand like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 I think it is strange that there are so many people in this thread referring to the Law and so few people just saying that partner is 5323 most likely (basically always?), which is terrible with our shape, so we have an obvious pass. The Law supports a pass. There are 16-17 total tricks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 I think it is strange that there are so many people in this thread referring to the Law and so few people just saying that partner is 5323 most likely (basically always?), which is terrible with our shape, so we have an obvious pass. The Law supports a pass. Yes, but so does bridge logic, and I didn't even need to make any adjustments. I want to add that it's basically impossible to come up with a hand for partner where we want to be in 3♠ (that is, just from looking at partner's hand, we are probably making 3♠ and they are probably making 3♦). I am also willing to bet that the double dummy total number of tricks is less than 16, but this depends a little on what you think a 2♦ or 3♦ bid is. On top of this, it is practically a puzzle to even construct layouts where both 3♠ and 3♦ are making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trumpace Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 FWIW, I agree with the pass. My comment was directed at the post which claimed that the law implies that we pass this out (sorry should have quoted it). I guess by "The Law", people mean different things (some include adjustments, some don't). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 I think it is strange that there are so many people in this thread referring to the Law and so few people just saying that partner is 5323 most likely (basically always?), which is terrible with our shape, so we have an obvious pass. The Law supports a pass. Yes, but so does bridge logic, and I didn't even need to make any adjustments. Adjusted bridge logic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted March 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 I strongly suspect pard to be 4-4-2-3. If my partner was going to compete with that shape he would make a takeout double. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 As for good keylime quotes: the losers are completely obscene Clearly a winner talking! I know, a little out of context Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 With this terrific shape, passing seems pretty obvious to me!Bidding is a big winner only if both sides can make on the 3-level. I'd expect both sides to go down at the 3-level quite often. 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.