Hanoi5 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Partner deals and opens 1♠, 3♥ (WJO) on your right and you hold: ♠QJx♥- - -♦K98xx♣ATxxx So you bid 4♥ and it comes back to you again: 1♠ 3♥ 4♥ Pa4♠ Pa ??? What do you bid and why? How do you consider other possibilities? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 an alternative to 4♥ is a neg X and followed with a raise to 4♠ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Given that you didn't make a Neg double last time, you must have just decided your hand is worth game in spades. Partner bid game in spades. Are you really thinking about bidding again with the same values you showed already? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 C'mon, man don't TheHoguize yourself. Just think bridge, your partner bid game and you showed a good hand with support but is that enough? If Pass is such a wtp? why are you thinking of something else? I might not even be asking this for the reasons you think, just say that you Pass and that you need at least x else in order to move. Also, why would you look for a minor suit fit when you have a sure fit in spade? Is it really normal to use negative double with support and then 'support' after partner mentioned another suit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 4♥ is an overbid. Plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 4♥ is an overbid. Plain and simple. I agree. I've already overbid in a unilateral way, bidding on over 4♠ would just be guessing. Also, why would you look for a minor suit fit when you have a sure fit in spade? Is it really normal to use negative double with support and then 'support' after partner mentioned another suit?For one, finding a double fit would improve the hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Ok, I will try to think Bridge. 1)Partner bid game in Spades, because I gave him no room to bid less.2)Partner did not bid more than game.3)Art, for one, thinks 4H was too much. I am ok with 4H.4)I cannot imagine bidding again, since in Bridge --when I let partner cooperate and he chooses not to, I don't like saying: "Didn't you see my bid?" and making another move.5)Is being "Thehog", a bad thing? If, so I had not noticed. He thinks Bridge, from what I have seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Making a negative double is horrible. Obv pass now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I would never, ever consider making a negative double with support and a heart void. Nor is 4♥ "an overbid". How do you want to analyze this hand? How about ZAR points. There are 10 "hcp, 3 control points, 15 distributional points - that totals 28 BEFORE counting fit points. We have 2 more QJ of spades and some more for ruffing values. We can't use superfit points, because we are not sure of having a superfit (9 cards). But no matter how you look at it, this is MORE THAN enough to force to game. Assuming partner has at least 26 ZAR points, you have a minimum combined value of 59 Zar points (52 for game). I, however, would remain "fixed" (preempts work) and pass 4♠ with a small bit of regret. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
655321 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 4♥ is normal, pass now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted July 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2009 Well, then: I'll tell the full story now. Opener thought for some time before bidding 4♠ and Responder continued with 5♣. I said this was a breach in ethics and that I'll just prove it (by posting here). Point has been proven. Thanks for clearing about the negative double, I thought I was going crazy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peachy Posted July 26, 2009 Report Share Posted July 26, 2009 Well, then: I'll tell the full story now. Opener thought for some time before bidding 4♠ and Responder continued with 5♣. I said this was a breach in ethics and that I'll just prove it (by posting here). Point has been proven. Thanks for clearing about the negative double, I thought I was going crazy... If the 5C bidder responder knows something about the laws, then he was acting illegally and showed poor ethics. The hesitation by opener showed doubt and in this auction the only doubt possible is that he has some extras that he is thinking of showing. But if the 5C bidder is blissfully ignorant about what the law tells him to do/not do when partner hesitates, then that is all there is - he didn't know. But after this, he knows better, particularly if a TD explained it to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted July 26, 2009 Report Share Posted July 26, 2009 :) Well, then: I'll tell the full story now. Opener thought for some time before bidding 4♠ and Responder continued with 5♣. I said this was a breach in ethics and that I'll just prove it (by posting here). Point has been proven. Thanks for clearing about the negative double, I thought I was going crazy...No, you werent going crazy when you thought bidding on was a breach of ethics after the hesitation. No, you werent crazy thinking a Neg double would have been an unnecessary fogging up of the auction. But, when your real agenda was to confirm that PASS was not only a logical alternative to making another bid --but the only logical action if all calls had been in tempo ---then you, in fact, went crazy when you jumped on a reply which agreed with your position while, at the same time paying me a compliment (calling me "thehogized") :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted July 26, 2009 Report Share Posted July 26, 2009 C'mon, man don't TheHoguize yourself. Is that a word? 4H was ok, a sputnik double would have been poor. Certainly pass now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel_k Posted July 26, 2009 Report Share Posted July 26, 2009 Well, then: I'll tell the full story now. Opener thought for some time before bidding 4♠ and Responder continued with 5♣. I said this was a breach in ethics and that I'll just prove it (by posting here). Point has been proven. Thanks for clearing about the negative double, I thought I was going crazy... If the 5C bidder responder knows something about the laws, then he was acting illegally and showed poor ethics. Maybe he knows the laws perfectly well but thought his hand was clearly worth another move. There are plenty of hands posted in these forums where the majority prefers some action and one or two think a different action is obvious. People are much too quick to accuse others of behaving unethically. 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.