S&G

[kenrexford]

♠AQx ♥x ♦xxx ♣xxxxxx

♠KJx ♥Qxxxx ♦AJxx ♣x

 

Just thought this was funny. What percentage of a good field would you expect to end up in 2♠ with these hands (or, bidding 2♠ with intent to stop there, perhaps the opponents taking the plunge to compete)?

[gnasher]

Did you hold the responding hand? What was the total size of the field?

[manudude03]

I'd say about 1% at most. Mind you I did notice a pair a few weeks ago decided to play 2H X on a 2-2 fit so....

[Dirk Kuijt]

If I'm guessing: what would maximize the probability, I would have East deal and open 1♣. South doubles, and North bids 1♠. From here, it gets fuzzy, but West comes in with 2♥ and it comes back to South, who balances into 2♠.

 

Not all that likely, but no one has done anything outlandish.

[kenrexford]

What? No one for the simple 1♥-P-1♠-P-2♠?

[jdonn]

If I'm guessing: what would maximize the probability, I would have East deal and open 1♣. South doubles, and North bids 1♠. From here, it gets fuzzy, but West comes in with 2♥ and it comes back to South, who balances into 2♠.

 

Not all that likely, but no one has done anything outlandish.

Except for south, twice?

[JLOGIC]

What? No one for the simple 1♥-P-1♠-P-2♠?

I might bid this way playing with myself, so I guess that means kenrexford and jlall!

[Phil]

The field in your games is about three tables, right? :P

 

Dunno, I'll guess 25% did.

[Dirk Kuijt]

jdonn

 

What I meant was that no one has psyched, misread a bid, or forgotten an convention; that was what I was thinking of outlandish.

 

I agree that my 2♠ bid is bad; I'm going to claim that, in my sequence, South's double is merely poor.

 

OTOH, it isn't all that easy to think of logical ways to get to a 3-3 fit.

[ArtK78]

Makes a lot of tricks on a trump lead and continuation.

[awm]

How many people sitting the other way play precision? I am told that if your opponents play precision, it is normal to land in a 3-3 fit.

[Free]

What?  No one for the simple 1♥-P-1♠-P-2♠?

That's pretty much the only way to get to 2♠ imo. However I disagree with the 1♠ response (what's wrong with 1NT?), and depending on the level of the field not everyone supports on a 3 card suit with 2♦ as an easy alternative. So I guess a very small percentage would end up in 2♠.

[doclands]

2C*- x - p - 2S

END

* natural 11-15 and good 6cd suit

 

(not a totally unreasonable pairs auction)

 

OR

 

1C - p - 2C - x

p -2S END

 

(again not an unreasonable pairs auction)

 

I like the post - good to see a more unusual topic :rolleyes:

[hanp]

The field in your games is about three tables, right? :rolleyes:

 

Dunno, I'll guess 25% did.

How come all your math post make for ideal signatures?

[Dirk Kuijt]

So, Ken, what was the answer to your question? What percentage of pairs did end in the 3-3 'fit'?

[geller]

Pardon my ignorance, but what does the "S&G" in the title of this thread mean?

[Gerben42]

Pardon my ignorance but why is responding 1♠ to 1♥ a good idea?