Hanoi5 Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 You hold: ♠74♥x♦T63♣AKJT653 Red vs White:3♥ Pa Pa ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 3N, somebody has to man up. Pass is ok, 4C is not IMO (you will just go minus a lot). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Pass, nobody has to man up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomSac Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 3S, i don't like to agree with either jdonn or clee so i compromise here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 4H Michaels as I don't agree with anyone. Seriously I pass and it isn't close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinorKid Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 I will just pass.When you bid opponent may call 4♥.You are very short in side suit and is likely that they have one to be established.You may not use partner's trumps in ♣ so you can expect him to have nearly nothing offensive. If he has respective length in one, then opponent may have another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 Hi, Pass. The alternatives for us would be 5C, since 4C would be artificial. You know, p has some heart length, otherwise,he would have acted, so he will have at best a weak NT, which makes it unlikely that you are missing game.And if THEY know, what they are doing, than the p of the preemptor may be the richest guy on the table. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 errr? how can I agree with 3NT without agreeing with roger? Another example of sick reopening :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
655321 Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 errr? how can I agree with 3NT without agreeing with roger? Another example of sick reopening :ph34r:Well to me there is a big difference in your 2 examples of 'sick' reopenings. On this hand personally I would pass. A 3NT bid might be described as courageous, or insane, or lunatic even, but there is a real upside to it, and you have to admire a 3NT balance here (just a little :ph34r:) even if you disagree with it. Also, as a BTW perhaps, -1100 here is unlikely, I imagine everyone is running when 3NT is doubled. The hand in the other thread ( http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=37691 ) is AKx xx Qxxxx Kxx after a 3♣opening on our left. I would use different adjectives to describe a balancing bid with this hand, words such as terrible, atrocious, etc. There is no real upside, and a very real risk of being doubled for a number. So to me it is fundamentally wrong to balance at the 3 level with a weak notrump and length in their suit, whereas it is not fundamentally wrong to balance when you have a long suit and shortage in their suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 errr? how can I agree with 3NT without agreeing with roger? Another example of sick reopening :ph34r:Well to me there is a big difference in your 2 examples of 'sick' reopenings. On this hand personally I would pass. A 3NT bid might be described as courageous, or insane, or lunatic even, but there is a real upside to it, and you have to admire a 3NT balance here (just a little :ph34r:) even if you disagree with it. Also, as a BTW perhaps, -1100 here is unlikely, I imagine everyone is running when 3NT is doubled. The hand in the other thread ( http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=37691 ) is AKx xx Qxxxx Kxx after a 3♣opening on our left. I would use different adjectives to describe a balancing bid with this hand, words such as terrible, atrocious, etc. There is no real upside, and a very real risk of being doubled for a number. So to me it is fundamentally wrong to balance at the 3 level with a weak notrump and length in their suit, whereas it is not fundamentally wrong to balance when you have a long suit and shortage in their suit. Well said. Yes 3NT here could definitely work but ugh it could definitely go down a lot too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayin801 Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 I understand it's a gamble and we're banking on getting in to take 9 tricks first, but are we also worried that partner, holding a good hand that couldn't act (Ax, Qxxx, KQJxxx, x or some such) isn't gonna blast off, even if partner didn't balance? Cause that could lead to a bad score too. Or is it mandatory to pass partner's balancing 3NT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 I often punish partner for reopening with a double, but haven't punished him yet for reopening with 3NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 I understand it's a gamble and we're banking on getting in to take 9 tricks first, but are we also worried that partner, holding a good hand that couldn't act (Ax, Qxxx, KQJxxx, x or some such) isn't gonna blast off, even if partner didn't balance?I think that's a routine overcall over 3♣. Or is it mandatory to pass partner's balancing 3NT?It's not mandatory to pass it, but I don't think you can make a slam try opposite it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 I understand it's a gamble and we're banking on getting in to take 9 tricks first, but are we also worried that partner, holding a good hand that couldn't act (Ax, Qxxx, KQJxxx, x or some such) isn't gonna blast off, even if partner didn't balance?I think that's a routine overcall over 3♣. Yes, but people frown upon players who bid 3♦ over 3♥. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 I understand it's a gamble and we're banking on getting in to take 9 tricks first, but are we also worried that partner, holding a good hand that couldn't act (Ax, Qxxx, KQJxxx, x or some such) isn't gonna blast off, even if partner didn't balance?I think that's a routine overcall over 3♣. Yes, but people frown upon players who bid 3♦ over 3♥. :( Getting two threads mixed up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 It's really a 3NT wtp to me :D I don't care much for stoppers. Really, I don't :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 Stoppers, nor strength, nor the suit being solid, nor any sort of fit for any suit partner might have... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 3NT wouldn't have occurred to me (of course neither would x or 4C) but from now on I will try it. Admittedly this is a rare situation.. 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.