mtvesuvius Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 All Vul. at IMPs you hold: AJxT9AKxxxxxA LHO ruins yours plan by opening 1♥, and RHO bids 2♥. What's your new plan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I prefer to play similar defense hear as over a weak 2 bid: leaping Michaels and 3H shows a long suit and asks for a stopper. So 3H it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I don't play Han's methods, so I would start with a double. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 You play 3H is Michaels? I wonder what is "standard' now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 I also play that 3♥ is Michael's (as I would if a weak 2♥ was opened on my right), so I will start with double as well. I won't be disappointed if partner jumps to 4♠. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Agree with Han. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 You play 3H is Michaels? I wonder what is "standard' now. I think it would be suicide to make the cuebid here or over a weak 2 bid undiscussed. I have no idea what is standard. I generally play michaels there. I would double on this hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdanno Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 I would double, the hand doesn't look very much like NT to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 I think I would bid 2♦ + balance over 2♥ with 4♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 I would double, the hand doesn't look very much like NT to me. I didn't say the hand looks like NT. Anyway, I will pull a slow 3NT bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 3D for me. We are vul, so this shows a good hand. Pd does not have 5 reasonable S - no S overcall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Ron has stopped to be a junior at last. I agree with him and thought 3 ♦ was obvious. 3 ♥ would include running diamonds, the queen more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 3D for me. We are vul, so this shows a good hand. Pd does not have 5 reasonable S - no S overcall.Presumably Axx xx AQxxxx Ax is also a good hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 3D for me. We are vul, so this shows a good hand. Pd does not have 5 reasonable S - no S overcall. We agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Double for me. But just a tad heavy for 3♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Are people seriously bidding 3D or is that a joke? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bid_em_up Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 I would double, the hand doesn't look very much like NT to me. I didn't say the hand looks like NT. Anyway, I will pull a slow 3NT bid. Was this also a joke? What happened to not taking actions based on partners "hesitations" when pass is a logical alternative? (I think I would bid a heavy 3D also, fwiw, but wouldn't disagree with X or 3H asking for stop either). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Yeah han, don't you know that is a very unethical thing to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Are people seriously bidding 3D or is that a joke?I don't consider 3♦ to be a joke.... it is not my choice... I double... but it is not a silly call, since the odds are very much against our having any game here... assume we have no heart stopper and we have 2 quick heart losers: to make game now we must have zero losers elsewhere. I would expect that to be so less than 20% of the time, and that doubling and then bidding won't often help find out which ones they are: Give partner KQx xxx xx xxxxx or xxx xxx xx KQxxx, and how can we tell? As one simple (simplistic?) example. As for an argument that doubling finds spades, I suspect it does only if we have a secret decoder ring so that we can tell when partner holds 5 of them... I assume that we intend to bid diamonds over 2♠ by partner? If not, good luck with a moysian and no control of the hand.... if so, good luck finding the 5-3 spade fit on most hands! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Yeah han, don't you know that is a very unethical thing to do? Been hanging out with your friends Josh. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Owwwww Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill1157 Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 3♦ is right, because if partner now bids spades, you have an easy raise to game. If you X first and he bids spades (even 4♠) you really arent well placed.There is a chance of 3♦ passing out, but i would consider it remote. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts