sathyab Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Frequently the choices at MP, you're dealt, [hv=d=e&v=n&s=sa984hk92dakjt83c]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] The bidding goes: (p) 1♦ (p) p (1♥) 1♠ (2♦) p (2♥) ? With so much playing strength, it feels wrong to sell out to 2♥. So, say you double, looking for a spade contract first before being forced to the three-level. Partner bids 3♣, which you correct to 3♦ which gets doubled. Would you sell out sell out to 2♥, given LHO's cue-bid and the vulnerability ?Can you get to 3♦ with a different bidding sequence that makes it harder for opponents to double ? If for instance you had bid 2♦ over 1♥ instead of 1♠, planning to bid 2♠ later if possible, LHO doesn't have a cue-bid available now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 When I bid 1♠ opposite a passed-hand partner, I said I had a hand that did not want to sell out to 2♥. If I pass, and partner agrees, partner can bid. If he disagrees with my thought, and passes also, he's probably right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 When I bid 1♠ opposite a passed-hand partner, I said I had a hand that did not want to sell out to 2♥. If I pass, and partner agrees, partner can bid. If he disagrees with my thought, and passes also, he's probably right. wow nice post ken! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFA Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 I would try 3♦ on my own, although risky of course. I don't see why 1♠ should promise so much. Opposite xxx, xx, xx, xxxxxx we have a reasonable chance in practice in 3♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkDean Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 I pass and am not close to bidding. Given my auction so far, my hand is quite defensive: A,AK, plus Kxx of their suit and a void. It seems rather likely that partner is sitting on a boatload of clubs other there - I certainly would have expected him to bid 2♠ with basically any hand with 4+ spades last round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 I bid and I'm not close to passing. Pard's expected hand is something like 3235 or thereabouts. Maybe he was going to bid 3♦ anyway, but he doesn't know I have 6 of those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldman5757 Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 I don't see much point in the X. If P had 4 ♠, he'd have raised. So, for me, it's 3♦ or pass, and I wouldn't like it, but I'd bid 3♦. On a good day we can make it, or maybe they won't X (I know they did), and we'll only go -100. Of course, we may be -200 even without the X. Really close. :ph34r: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sathyab Posted April 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 I don't see much point in the X. If P had 4 ♠, he'd have raised. So, for me, it's 3♦ or pass, and I wouldn't like it, but I'd bid 3♦. On a good day we can make it, or maybe they won't X (I know they did), and we'll only go -100. Of course, we may be -200 even without the X. Really close. :ph34r:I agree, most likely partner doesn't have four spades or he'd have bid 2♠ before. At the table I thought I ought to try to get to a seven-card spade fit if there was one, before bidding 3♦. If he has a 3=2=2=6 pattern, he might bid 2♠. 2♠ probably won't play well, but it may be harder to double hopefully. The goal of the experiment was to see if we can avoid defending 2♥ somehow without being offered game bonus in a pointed suit contract :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Tu Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Don't know if it makes a difference to anyone but the hand posted was dealer not 2nd position. So RHO's upper limit is effectively slightly higher. -----LHO (who, after the 1S bid, was going to take a crack at anything above 2H, knowing it would give the game bonus some portion of the time) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 If you fear getting doubled this much, perhaps you should not be bidding at all. Prayer is not a good matchpoint strategy. I don't see what's wrong with defending 2♥. I try not to save my opponents from every 6-0 fit when I've already described my hand pretty well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sathyab Posted April 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 If you fear getting doubled this much, perhaps you should not be bidding at all. Prayer is not a good matchpoint strategy. I don't see what's wrong with defending 2♥. I try not to save my opponents from every 6-0 fit when I've already described my hand pretty well.LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Well I thought I was being constructive, even posting according to your preferences. But if you want to act like children I can play that way too. Can you get to 3♦ with a different bidding sequence that makes it harder for opponents to double ?LOL At the table I thought I ought to try to get to a seven-card spade fit if there was one, before bidding 3♦.LOL 2♠ probably won't play well, but it may be harder to double hopefully.LOL (If you must know I misread the auction and missed the 2♦ bid. But having seen it gave me a lot of good LOL material to dig through anyway, so even better!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 I would definitely pass 2H. Pd has heard me bid 2 suits, a good hand and still passed. I think Ken summed it up well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 I think there's just a bit too much danger of ending up -200 to bid here at MP with this vulnerability. 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.