MFA Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 [hv=d=w&v=n&s=sk853hat9dkqtck72]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (1♥) - 2♣ - (3♥) - ?? 3♥ is preemptive and could be absolute rubbish. Do we have a plan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 i will just x and raise whatever partner is going to bid. of course I would be more than happy if he could somehow pass it but that is not going to happen easily. partner likely has a singleton heart and that's not going to help our chances in 3NT but it looks OK for 5♣, the contract that we will most likely play. I am pessimistic today so I won't try for slam but that's probably not right. not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 I am bidding RKCW if partner plays it 1430 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 [hv=d=w&v=n&s=sk853hat9dkqtck72]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (1♥) - 2♣ - (3♥) - ?? 3♥ is preemptive and could be absolute rubbish. Do we have a plan? yeah I plan to bid 3NT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Double. 3NT would be right opposite specifically AQxxxx and an ace. Double will work really well if he bids 3♠; if he doesn't, I'll bid 5♣. 5♣ will be the right spot if he doesn't have a side ace, or if we have a club loser. It may also survive if he has ♠A. It will only be terrible if he has ♦A and ♠xxx (and even then we're not completely dead). It seems wildly optimistic to hope for slam. Qx x Axxx AQJxxx makes a good, but not cold, slam, but that's a very specific 6-4 where the opponents have reached the three-level on a combined 12-count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilgan Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 X If partner bids spades, I will raise. Will probably be a moysian, but should be a strong moysian. Its also very unlikely I'll get a crazy break in spades (4-2 at worst) whereas I could get a very bad club break. If partner bids 4♣ or 4♦ I'll sign off in 5♣. If partner passes (unlikely) that'll be fine too. While slam is a possibility, I don't see a good way to explore for it in a safe way. Simply bidding 3NT was my first thought, but thinking about hands it seems like most hands that can make 3NT will make 5♣, and some that don't might still make 5♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleBerg Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 X. If partner simply rebid something, I'll raise to game. If partner jumps, I'll bid 6♣. I see no reason to play a slam in spades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Double seems right, I think the odds 3NT is right aren't nearly as high as the odds that one of 4♠/5♣/6♣ are right. I think I'll be able to work it out most of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Double and see what happens next. Slam is certainly not out of the question. Partner is allowed to have a good hand for his overcall, and he doesn't need the best overcall ever seen for 6♣ to be a claim. Even a fair overcall with six clubs and three aces makes slam on a 2-2 club break. And if partner is 4-6 in the minors with three aces, slam will make even if clubs are 3-1. There are a lot of other hands where partner has a singleton heart (highly likely) which don't require 3 aces for slam to be cold. For example: Ax x Jxxx AQTxxx. And other hands which provide very good play for 6♣. So the pessimists who believe slam is highly unlikely may need to reevaluate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 If we double can partner bid a 3 card spade suit very often when hes 3136? If so how do we get to clubs? Just curious, because I'm sure I'd try 3S with AQx x xxx Axxxxx or something...maybe that's wrong though? edited my hand example to make it less strong heh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 If we double can partner bid a 3 card spade suit very often when hes 3136? If so how do we get to clubs? Just curious, because I'm sure I'd try 3S with AQx x xxx Axxxxx or something...maybe that's wrong though? Maybe dbl-3♠-4♥ shows four spades and offers a choice of games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFA Posted January 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Double. 3NT would be right opposite specifically AQxxxx and an ace. Double will work really well if he bids 3♠; (...)Are you also planning to raise 3♠ to 4♠?What hand and shape are you expecting partner to have for that bid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Double and see what happens next. Slam is certainly not out of the question. Partner is allowed to have a good hand for his overcall, and he doesn't need the best overcall ever seen for 6♣ to be a claim. Even a fair overcall with six clubs and three aces makes slam on a 2-2 club break. And if partner is 4-6 in the minors with three aces, slam will make even if clubs are 3-1. There are a lot of other hands where partner has a singleton heart (highly likely) which don't require 3 aces for slam to be cold. For example: Ax x Jxxx AQTxxx. And other hands which provide very good play for 6♣. So the pessimists who believe slam is highly unlikely may need to reevaluate.Your examples seem to tell us that:- If the opponents have a combined 13-count consisting of QJ KQJ J QJ, slam will be poor unless partner is 4-6 in the minors.- If the opponents have a combined 13-count consisting of QJ KQJ A, slam will be hopeless unless partner is 4-6 in the minors. I might add that:- If the opponents have a combined 13-count consisting of AQ KQJ J, slam will be hopeless even if partner is 4-6 in the minors. I think I'll stick with my original evaluation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 Are you also planning to raise 3♠ to 4♠?What hand and shape are you expecting partner to have for that bid? Yes, I am. I expect partner to be 4-6 or 4-5. However, if I thought 3-6 was possible, I'd bid 4♥, choice-of-games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 How about this logic: If partner is 4135 he will always X 1H (and almost always with 4225, but we "know" thats not his shape anyways). If partner is 4126 he will often bid 4S over our X(?), ergo partner is often 3-6 if he bids 3S? Not sure if I agree with that btw, just thinking out loud. I think the first part is good, but the second part is probably questionable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 What does X then 3N over 3S suggest? Surely that would imply 4 spades and a (not so great) heart stopper, else I would have started by bidding 3N to begin with? The problem with that is that even if I expect partner to pull with 4 spades, 5C might be the right contract rather than 3N if partner has a 3 card spade holding. What about X then 4C over 3S? Is that forcing? Probably not, I could have been trying to get to 3N and now when partner couldn't bid it, I'm trying to stop in 4C opposite a min. That would be a useful agreement here though. Gnasher is probably right that 4H should be a COG over 3S, but I think my partners would take it as a slam try in spades. X and 3N over 3S at least seems like a possibility though. I think 5C rates to be better than 3N when partner has 3 spades though, so I'd prefer gnasher's option of X then 4H. If 4C was forcing over 3S then 4H should be a slam try in spades though imo, but as I said I don't think it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 (edited) Sorry, my suggestion that partner might be 4-5 in the blacks was absurd. Let's assume that our objective is to reach any 8-card spade fit, but not a 7-card spade fit. Assume also that 3♠ over 3♥ would be non-forcing. When advancer has game values, either of these methods will work:(1) Overcaller bids 3♠ with either three or four. The sequences dbl-3♠-3NT and dbl-3♠-4♥ ask the overcaller to bid 4♠ if he has four.(2) Opener bids 3♠ only if he has four. The sequence dbl-4♣-4♠ shows five and offers a choice of games. So, on the game hands it doesn't matter how we do it, as long as we're both playing the same way. I think this comes down to what advancer does when he has five spades and not enough to insist on game. If he usually doubles, we should play (1); if he usually bids 3♠, we should play (2). Edited January 23, 2010 by gnasher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 How about this logic: If partner is 4135 he will always X 1H (and almost always with 4225, but we "know" thats not his shape anyways). If partner is 4126 he will often bid 4S over our X(?), ergo partner is often 3-6 if he bids 3S? Not sure if I agree with that btw, just thinking out loud. I think the first part is good, but the second part is probably questionable. I think partner's 3S bid will often be a 3-card suit and your logic is correct. A couple of weeks ago we bid 1S 2D 3S x; P 4H where the 4H bidder was 1336 and it was the right contract. I'm not sure that dbl...3NT shows 4S. Certainly it shows doubt about 3NT as a contract, but if you were, say, 3=2=5=3 with Ax of hearts wouldn't you also want to bid that way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFA Posted January 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Ok. I tried X and 3NT over 3♠. I think partner usually only has three spades for 3♠, and if he is 4-1-2-6 and min, he should remove 3NT anyway. I have no intention of trying a 4-3 with such a bad spade suit. Also I consider 3NT in this sequence to be a mild suggestion only. Anything but 3♠ from partner takes us above 3NT. If he has something like QJx, x, Jxx, AQJxxx he can perhaps bid 4♣ over 3NT, since passing would play us for a stopper + the club filler + 2 toptricks on the side, a bit much for a mild suggestion. But perhaps I'm just dreaming. At the other table there was a significant huddle before 3♠, and south then felt obliged to raise to 4♠, which was an unlucky contract with spades 1-5. I thought that south was just being a little masochistic there, but this thread seems to prove me wrong, so wp. Partner had ♠AQx, ♥x, ♦xxxx, ♣AJTxx. I'm used to X instead of 2♣ but that's another discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Yeah as I said my only problem with X then 3N is I think we get to 3N when 5C is better too often. I think with your example hand of partner having 6 good clubs for instance that he will sit for 3N since he has a source of tricks, despite his stiff heart. If we had no way to say "lets play 5C if you have 3 spades, and 4S if you have 4" then I like X then 3N best I guess. 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.