mfa1010 Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 I think mikeh sums it up very nicely. 1♠-2♠-3♠ is not a frightening sequence and partner can sensibly play us for something, which is what we have but not more. There will typically be a hole in the club suit and having only a singleton is a liability since we risk 4-1 offside and getting whacked in 5♣. We could raise if partner's aggression factor is <= 3 or something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted October 27, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2010 Thanks for the opinions. Partner's hand was: [hv=pc=n&n=shadk532caqj98653]133|100[/hv] Should partner have done more? There seem to be quite a lot of losers for a vulnerable leap to 5♣ but maybe that is too pessimistic. I did not annotate it earlier but I think the 3♠ raise on the actual table auction was intended as invitational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucky Posted October 27, 2010 Report Share Posted October 27, 2010 At this vulnerability, I would just bid 5♣ initially. Sure we could miss (grand) slam if partner has the right cards, but with 12 cards in minors, I don't expect we have all the room to constructively bid to slam anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 27, 2010 Report Share Posted October 27, 2010 no partner cannot hv a 3 loser hand and a void in spades and bid like this.--- (1s)=x(no prblem yet)( close second choice 5c..never 2c) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfa1010 Posted October 27, 2010 Report Share Posted October 27, 2010 Thanks for the opinions. Partner's hand was: [hv=pc=n&n=shadk532caqj98653]133|100[/hv] Should partner have done more? There seem to be quite a lot of losers for a vulnerable leap to 5♣ but maybe that is too pessimistic. I did not annotate it earlier but I think the 3♠ raise on the actual table auction was intended as invitational.5♣ first time.What was his thinking? That the hand was too good for an immediate 5♣ and therefore it was better to bid 2♣ then 4♣ after some nonscary bidding by the opps? Or? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Duck Posted October 27, 2010 Report Share Posted October 27, 2010 One thing is sure, my partner has 4 losers and not 3, because with 10 he had bet 5♣ 1/ Do I cover ONE or TWO loosers ?more than one but not 2 2/ how many total tricks on the board?only 18 and if it is 19 (my partner has 9 clubs) it is not good enough 3/ Do I expect the OPP will bid 5♣ at the other table?not often DO I BID?I don't bidIf my partner has ♠- ♥87 ♦KJ7 ♣AKQJ9652he will probably win but wouldn't you bid 5♣ on 1♠ with such a hand? As the hand really was, I bid also 5♣ because I have only 3 loosers, I don't agree 4♣ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar13 Posted October 29, 2010 Report Share Posted October 29, 2010 turn the Q♠->Q♥ and I might raise but I only have 1 potential trick and need 2Bingo. the ♥Q is at least potentially useful, the ♠Q is waste paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted October 29, 2010 Report Share Posted October 29, 2010 what do you want ♥Q for?, you have the long diamonds to discard partner's hearts, if the diamonds don't work 5♣ won't be a good spot anyway. ♥Q will only be useful if partner has the ♥A and they don't lead a spade but a heart. 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.