cyc0002002 Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 [hv=s=sqj109xxhxxxdxxcxx]133|100|[/hv] N v Vthe bidding goes: 1NT* X 2♠** 3♣ - 3NT ? * 13-15** 5+S suit ,runs from 1NT I feel my partner would stuck into endless throw-inso I decide to save him ,and the 3NT. the result was good, -300 bought their 3NTbut my partner thought the 4♠ is unacceptable I want u to rate the 4♠ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cRi cRi Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 I agree with your partner :). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 I agree with your partner :). based on what criteria? Your side has to make 7 tricks assuming the other side has 9 tricks locked up to turn a profit. Do you think you are setting 3NT based on your ♠ suit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cRi cRi Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 No, I base this on the fact that we have between 16 and 18 count and we have a good lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 No, I base this on the fact that we have between 16 and 18 count and we have a good lead. Having a good lead is not the same as setting 3NT. Sure you can set up your ♠ but which deuce are you using for an entry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 I want u to rate the 4♠ Bit of a gamble perhaps, but it seems fine to me. Anyway, right or wrong in principle, the result was OK - you sound like you have an ungrateful partner. Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesleyC Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 If you feel compelled to sacrifice over 3NT, you should have bid 3S on the first round to involve your partner in the decision. Unilateral guesses like 2S then 4S are an insult to your partner's judgment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 If you feel compelled to sacrifice over 3NT, you should have bid 3S on the first round to involve your partner in the decision. Unilateral guesses like 2S then 4S are an insult to your partner's judgment. Good post Wesley. I strongly agree with this sentiment. 3S first time sounds right to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhm Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 [hv=s=sqj109xxhxxxdxxcxx]133|100|[/hv] N v Vthe bidding goes: 1NT* X 2♠** 3♣ - 3NT ? * 13-15** 5+S suit ,runs from 1NT I feel my partner would stuck into endless throw-inso I decide to save him ,and the 3NT. the result was good, -300 bought their 3NTbut my partner thought the 4♠ is unacceptable I want u to rate the 4♠ 4♠ was a good bid at match points. At IMPs it is much closer. Once your partner opens 1NT you are the captain, not your partner, and I can not see any breach of partnership discipline nor why you need to consult him here. It is possible but quite unlikely that you can beat 3NT. 3♠ immediately might or might not have been a better bid. If you jump in such a situation you are telling opponents that you do have a long suit and do not mind getting doubled. 2♠ is in fact more likely to attract a penalty double, should opponents have no clear action. The main attraction of 3♠ is that this makes it more difficult to find a ♥ fit. Over 3♠ LHO opponent would probably double (action, showing values) and RHO is still likely to bid 3NT. Now what? Rainer Herrmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 If you feel compelled to sacrifice over 3NT, you should have bid 3S on the first round to involve your partner in the decision. Unilateral guesses like 2S then 4S are an insult to your partner's judgment. I am not sure that it is clear that 3♠ is asking partner to bid 4♠ with the right hand if necessary. I suppose you could have that agreement but I doubt that it is standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 I would had understood 3♠ as forcing with 5+ cards, maybe suboptimal, but I don't have specific agreements for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleBerg Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 <snip> 3♠ immediately might or might not have been a better bid. If you jump in such a situation you are telling opponents that you do have a long suit and do not mind getting doubled. <Snap> Rainer HerrmannWill you please tell my opponents that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peachy Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 Your partner thought it unacceptable for what reason? Because he would not have bid it? Or because he does not want his partner to make gambling actions? I don't see the merits of 4S, but having opened 1NT, your partner is not in charge of the auction after that. You gambled with 4S and won, if they would have made 3NT. Your 4S might have lost when they don't make 3NT or when 4S goes for more than their making game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 I would had understood 3♠ as forcing with 5+ cards, maybe suboptimal, but I don't have specific agreements for this. I think it is fairly standard for a jump after a strong double of 1NT to be pre-emptive. Strong hands can start with a double or jump to game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 On my only strong NT land nobody has played enough hands in his life where preempting had sense to ever think of standaricing it :(. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 This was a weak no trump - well 13-15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyc0002002 Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Your partner thought it unacceptable for what reason? Because he would not have bid it? Or because he does not want his partner to make gambling actions? because my partner thought that It is a bad gambling ,in IMP(sorry I forgot to mention it) 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.