H_KARLUK Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 [hv=d=n&v=e&n=shkqt76dt54ckt973&w=sakj9843ha43d9c64&e=s752h5dqj732cqj85&s=sqt6hj982dak86ca2]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 2♥ P 4♥ 4♠ P P DAP 1.♥K2.♥ruff3.♠finesse-♣3 discard4.2nd ♥ ruff5.low♦ to K6.♣AClaims 10 tricks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Nothing. It was played well. Well... For the bidding: Tough... I don't know, but I think maybe North should bid 5♣ over 4♠? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 I don't know, but I think maybe North should bid 5♣ over 4♠? Nooooooooo. This was fine to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_KARLUK Posted March 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 At first sight seems 6♥ makeable vs all defenses by NS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 At first sight seems 6♥ makeable vs all defenses by NS. Only if you have the hand records. For instance, there is only one winning play after you ruff the spade lead, and that is to advance the DT and pinning the stiff 9. Good luck finding that one! Anyways, just because the final result is terrible does not make the bidding bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill1157 Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Nothing. It was played well. Well... For the bidding: Tough... I don't know, but I think maybe North should bid 5♣ over 4♠? I agree, North should definitely bid 5♣. With void, a known fit, nv: why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 I agree, North should definitely bid 5♣. With void, a known fit, nv: why not? because you might be going for -300 when you have +200 or more coming to you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 What was 2♥? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill1157 Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 I agree, North should definitely bid 5♣. With void, a known fit, nv: why not? because you might be going for -300 when you have +200 or more coming to you... that thinking is fundamentally unsound (you always run some risk, but bridge is a bidders game: when in doubt bid 1 more etc.) Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wclass___ Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 I agree, North should definitely bid 5♣. With void, a known fit, nv: why not? because you might be going for -300 when you have +200 or more coming to you... that thinking is fundamentally unsound (you always run some risk, but bridge is a bidders game: when in doubt bid 1 more etc.) Bill Absolutely agree I would double as north (with regular pard) showing similar hand and pard will bid 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 5C is a nutter's bid. Your partner has bid 4H and knows about the hand. You have no idea on what the 4H bid was based. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 I agree, North should definitely bid 5♣. With void, a known fit, nv: why not? because you might be going for -300 when you have +200 or more coming to you... that thinking is fundamentally unsound (you always run some risk, but bridge is a bidders game: when in doubt bid 1 more etc.) Bill Funny that the one who is bidding uninvited after preempting is saying that to not do so would be fundamentally unsound. South can have 4♠ CRUSHED in his own hand, west has had to guess over 4♥ and might have to bid 4♠ on some pretty light hands. South didn't even have an amazing hand (not that he shouldn't double) and as little as west trading a small heart with his partner for a small diamond makes 4♠ go for 800 on best defense. North bidding in front of his partner over 4♠ is worse than bad, it is unforgivable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill1157 Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 I agree, North should definitely bid 5♣. With void, a known fit, nv: why not? because you might be going for -300 when you have +200 or more coming to you... that thinking is fundamentally unsound (you always run some risk, but bridge is a bidders game: when in doubt bid 1 more etc.) Bill Funny that the one who is bidding uninvited after preempting is saying that to not do so would be fundamentally unsound. South can have 4♠ CRUSHED in his own hand, west has had to guess over 4♥ and might have to bid 4♠ on some pretty light hands. South didn't even have an amazing hand (not that he shouldn't double) and as little as west trading a small heart with his partner for a small diamond makes 4♠ go for 800 on best defense. North bidding in front of his partner over 4♠ is worse than bad, it is unforgivable. If you are playing the traditional weak 2 (6-3-3-2 or 6-3-3-1 shape only) agreed, you should not bid again. Here you have a 2nd 5 card suit and a void. If you are going to bid weak 2's with this type of hand, then no you don't have to (and shouldn't) drop out of the auction after the first bid. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 If North can't resist the temptation to bid, the only thing he can do is to double 4♠, asking South to bid if possible. 5♣ (or 5♥ or whatever) are non-existent bids in this auction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill1157 Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 If North can't resist the temptation to bid, the only thing he can do is to double 4♠, asking South to bid if possible. 5♣ (or 5♥ or whatever) are non-existent bids in this auction. Yes, but at this level X isn't really for takeout... Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Yes it is, double by preemptor is "I really want to bid but I express this by doubling just in case you can crunch 4♠ on your own". This is the standard treatment and IMHO the only one that makes sense, since preemptor can't have a penalty double when his partner hasn't promised any defense either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill1157 Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Yes it is, double by preemptor is "I really want to bid but I express this by doubling just in case you can crunch 4♠ on your own". This is the standard treatment and IMHO the only one that makes sense, since preemptor can't have a penalty double when his partner hasn't promised any defense either. I don't know. That strikes me as a bad treatment. One of many in modern American bidding...If pd can crunch 4♠ in his own, then he can do so without my expressing doubts. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_h Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Yes it is, double by preemptor is "I really want to bid but I express this by doubling just in case you can crunch 4♠ on your own". This is the standard treatment and IMHO the only one that makes sense, since preemptor can't have a penalty double when his partner hasn't promised any defense either. I don't know. That strikes me as a bad treatment. One of many in modern American bidding...If pd can crunch 4♠ in his own, then he can do so without my expressing doubts. Bill Bad treatment? Think again :)If partner can crunch 4S on his own, then good luck to him crunching once we bid 5C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricK Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Yes it is, double by preemptor is "I really want to bid but I express this by doubling just in case you can crunch 4♠ on your own". This is the standard treatment and IMHO the only one that makes sense, since preemptor can't have a penalty double when his partner hasn't promised any defense either. I don't know. That strikes me as a bad treatment. One of many in modern American bidding...If pd can crunch 4♠ in his own, then he can do so without my expressing doubts. But if he hasn't he is not likely to bid on either. The double gives partner some new information - "I really want to bid on" - but does so in a way which doesn't get in the way in case he has a penalty double. I don't believe he should do it on this hand though. I'm assuming 2♥ is being played as some sort of two suiter (otherwise at best N has made rather a silly bid, at worst, NS have some serious disclosure issues). Based on that, I don't really want to bid on as North - I've said my piece on this hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill1157 Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 5C is a nutter's bid. Your partner has bid 4H and knows about the hand. You have no idea on what the 4H bid was based. pd knows you have 5♣'s and a ♠ void? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wclass___ Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 For me such high level doubles are 2-way, the auctual meaning to be found in owns hand South knows about void, 5♣ is not priority... Btw, this type of double has helped me out several times in various auctions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill1157 Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 For me such high level doubles are 2-way, the auctual meaning to be found in owns hand South knows about void, 5♣ is not priority... Btw, this type of double has helped me out several times in various auctions I think what people are trying to say is that they have some agreement in this situation that X by North is for takeout. Thats fine, but in any standard system the X is not takeout. North has made an undisciplined weak 2 with a second suit. I submit that even Al Roth would bid 5♣ over 4♠.You can't bid 5♣ over pds X btw. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 I think what people are trying to say is that they have some agreement in this situation that X by North is for takeout. No. It is not an agreement I have ever made with anybody. It's just the standard treatment and I would expect a good p to know this. Btw, the Dutch top pair Brink/Driver play double by preemptor as penalty after a third-seat preempt at the game level:p-p-4♥-pp-4♠-X The idea is that in third seat, you may open at the game level with a wide range of hands, including some strong hands with considerable defensive values. I don't know how common that treatment is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 I think Bill is a gimmick account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill1157 Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 I think Bill is a gimmick account. no, i just seem to have different opinions from the majority. 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.