rogerclee Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 r/r IMPs 9xxxx x ATxx KQx 1D 1H 1S 2DP 2H ? (x by partner would be 3♠) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlson Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 3d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 eh we're missing a game. 3♦ but I suspect 4 will work not infrequently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 3♦. I am not worried about missing a game. If there is one here, partner is likely to bid again. But since he passed over the opponents' 2♦ bid, and since the opponents seem to have some values, game is unlikely. [Of more concern is whether 3♦ is too high. Partner could be 3433, in which case we are likely to wind up in a very shaky 3♠. C'est la vie.] EDIT: Missed the failure to make a support double. So it is impossible for partner to be 3433. Ignore the bracketed text in my original post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 According to the OP, partner does not have 3♦, do you see why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 Partner could be 3433, in which case we are likely to wind up in a very shaky 3♠. C'est la vie. LOL for the first reason, then lol for the second reason. Anyway 3♦ is wtp why is this problem here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodney26 Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 Partner could be 3433, in which case we are likely to wind up in a very shaky 3♠. C'est la vie. LOL for the first reason, then lol for the second reason. Anyway 3♦ is wtp why is this problem here? Maybe he's curious to see if anyone passes and squelches the diamond fit, hoping for -170? 1S might have convinced righty to downgrade his spade honors. I'd bid 3D myself, but I'd feel a little queasy about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 what is double on this auction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 what is double on this auction? I don't care. I am never doubling with undisclosed diamond support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 Partner could be 3433, in which case we are likely to wind up in a very shaky 3♠. C'est la vie. LOL for the first reason, then lol for the second reason. Anyway 3♦ is wtp why is this problem here? Maybe he's curious to see if anyone passes and squelches the diamond fit, hoping for -170? 1S might have convinced righty to downgrade his spade honors. I'd bid 3D myself, but I'd feel a little queasy about it. We do have over half the strength, and top tricks (meaning good defense). It's like saying you don't raise hearts after 1♥ (1♠) because you are worried the opponents will find 4♠ more easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 3D..we could easily have a nine or 10-card fit. P.S., since we needed a support double available, I guess 1S didn't show five. But knowing partner has 2 or fewer makes this hand really good for diamonds --almost good enough to find an invite in Diamonds, if I can invent one without creating a game force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pict Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 Partner can't bid (can he?) with something like: Kx, xxx, KQxxx,Axx (or even the spade Ace instead of King?) Seems a good probability for an IMPs game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 what is double on this auction? I don't care. I am never doubling with undisclosed diamond support. I don't care, i'm asking what the double means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 what is double on this auction? I don't care. I am never doubling with undisclosed diamond support. I don't care, i'm asking what the double means. This hand or better with a diamond moved to hearts is perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomSac Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 Partner could be 3433, in which case we are likely to wind up in a very shaky 3♠. C'est la vie. LOL for the first reason, then lol for the second reason. Anyway 3♦ is wtp why is this problem here? The problem is you could easily miss a game, and possibly miss a slam, if you bid 3D. Having 5 small spades is really often given that partner will have a stiff spade a lot, and even if he has a doubleton spade it could be our hand for game pretty easily if he doesn't have a lot of heart wastage. I would definitely bid 4D on this hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 You could miss a game but 3♦ still seems obvious to me. 11 is a lot of tricks opposite a minimum opener. Also 4♦ seems forcing to me, or maybe you intended it that way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomSac Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 You could miss a game but 3♦ still seems obvious to me. 11 is a lot of tricks opposite a minimum opener. Also 4♦ seems forcing to me, or maybe you intended it that way? I would bid 3H with a forcing hand. I don't understand all these forcing 4 of a minor jumps when cuebids are available tbh. Similarly I think stuff like 1D 1S 2C 4C or 1D 1S 2D 4D are just shapely invite, not forcing. In this auction especially we already have no way to invite in diamonds (3D is constructive but not really invite obv), and we can just bid 3H then diamonds with diamonds, so whatever. Sometimes they bid 4H on your left and you'd rather have bid 4D forcing rather than 3H, but I think having a way to invite is more important than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 BBF ♥ Beep Beep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodney26 Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 Partner could be 3433, in which case we are likely to wind up in a very shaky 3♠. C'est la vie. LOL for the first reason, then lol for the second reason. Anyway 3♦ is wtp why is this problem here? Maybe he's curious to see if anyone passes and squelches the diamond fit, hoping for -170? 1S might have convinced righty to downgrade his spade honors. I'd bid 3D myself, but I'd feel a little queasy about it. We do have over half the strength, and top tricks (meaning good defense). It's like saying you don't raise hearts after 1♥ (1♠) because you are worried the opponents will find 4♠ more easily. It's not the same Josh. It's a different type of auction because of the spade situation. If partner has a stiff, we might be in -620/+600 territory or certainly where we want to bid on over 4H. The main problem here is the 1S spade bid has sent the opposite message to partner in terms of whether to defend or bid one more, and we have some idea that maybe we lack wastage in spades given partner's subsequent pass. In thinking about it though, pass is absurd. Too many minimums give partner decent play for game or no hope of beating 4H. x KTx KQxxx ATxx is a scary hand. If it goes 4H-p-p to you, I assume x, CK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 You could miss a game but 3♦ still seems obvious to me. 11 is a lot of tricks opposite a minimum opener. Also 4♦ seems forcing to me, or maybe you intended it that way? I would bid 3H with a forcing hand. I don't understand all these forcing 4 of a minor jumps when cuebids are available tbh. Similarly I think stuff like 1D 1S 2C 4C or 1D 1S 2D 4D are just shapely invite, not forcing. In this auction especially we already have no way to invite in diamonds (3D is constructive but not really invite obv), and we can just bid 3H then diamonds with diamonds, so whatever. Sometimes they bid 4H on your left and you'd rather have bid 4D forcing rather than 3H, but I think having a way to invite is more important than that. Good point, probably it is invitational and therefore a good bid. I didn't really think about more than 3♦ since I assumed the problem was posted with pass and double being the other options and I don't like either one at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 In this auction especially we already have no way to invite in diamonds (3D is constructive but not really invite obv), and we can just bid 3H then diamonds with diamonds, so whatever. Sometimes they bid 4H on your left and you'd rather have bid 4D forcing rather than 3H, but I think having a way to invite is more important than that. Is 3♦ even constructive? I wouldn't want to let them play 2♥ even if I had as little as K10xxx xx QJxx xx. As usual, it makes sense to use 2NT to take up some of the slack. You could use 2NT as invitational+ with diamonds, but transfers work even better: 2NT = clubs, 3♣ = diamonds weak/strong, 3♦ = diamonds invitational. Also as usual, as soon as I try to get from thinking "we should play transfers here" to working out which sequences it should apply to and how they vary, the idea becomes a complete nightmare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 2 NT inv + W/O this tool I try a mere 3 ♦. 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.