Ant590 Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Hey all, What's "expert standard" for hands like: ♠A75♥AQ7♦KQT7642♣- On an auction such as (1♣) - pass - (pass) - ? Doesn't seem right to double in case partner passes, and I thought it more common to play 2♣ as Michaels still. Jumping to 2/3♦ diamonds seems weaker than this hand the way I would usually play them, and jumping to 4♦ or 5♦ seems to eat up too much space... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 if you don't like X what do you see as your other options? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 I double. Keeps major fits in the picture.2 or 3 ♦ reasonable but 4 or 5 ♦ bids wouldn't even cross my mind tbh. If he passes double then i will live with it. And who knows , maybe 1!C doubled is the best spot for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dake50 Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 You hit one. 'Standard' starts double, but you pointed out the flaws.So 'Expert' hashes out this problem type.I convert 2C Q-bid response 2M,3M to 3D,4D. This shows srtonger than intermediate 3D.Exclusion-ask if 4M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yogeshdg Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 2clubs. No point in playing michaels in 4th seat when you hear two passes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Agree with the tuna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Doesn't seem right to double in case partner passes Err, what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 2clubs. No point in playing michaels in 4th seat when you hear two passes.Depends, if it's always a good hand, michaels is not stupid, particularly if the club is 4+, if it's 2+ you might want it natural. Some people agree IJO strength for 2♦ in passout seat, some SJO, not sure exactly waht 3♦ is, but I'd bid 2♦ if is SJO, 3♦ if it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 Looks like a classical 3♦ bid. (In my book it's a tad too strong for 3♦, though.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 2clubs. No point in playing michaels in 4th seat when you hear two passes.As a preemptive weapon, no, but you can easily have a constructive or very strong hand in which case Michaels makes things very easy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dellache Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 I would just bid 3♦ here meant as strong (why play it weak ??).I don't want to take the risk to play in 1♣-X. The goal is to play 3NT or some diamonds (4M is possible, but I notice that partner could not find a 1M overcall). Sidenote: I have always been wondering if 1♦ in BALPOS should not be strongish for fear of oppos finding an alternative contract (game) in one Major. It seems that everytime I have a moderate hand with diamonds, either I make a T/O, or I may want to pass when short in one Major. Actually, I can't remember the last time I did balance with 1♦... what do other posters think ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Hey all, What's "expert standard" for hands like: ♠A75♥AQ7♦KQT7642♣- On an auction such as (1♣) - pass - (pass) - ? Doesn't seem right to double in case partner passes, and I thought it more common to play 2♣ as Michaels still. Jumping to 2/3♦ diamonds seems weaker than this hand the way I would usually play them, and jumping to 4♦ or 5♦ seems to eat up too much space...x no problem yet ------ with my rebid I need to find a way to show 4 loser hand with long d and short clubs. -- btw I think 2d here would show long d and around 12-16 hcp so x and 2d is more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleBerg Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 How to bid in the balancing position, after a weak opening one-of-a-suit has been passed out, is one the most unexplored areas in bridge, so it wouldn't be reasonable to declare a specific style "Expert standard". On the hand in question, I find X obvious, followed by the cheapest possible diamond-bid, not obvious, but relatively clear. Of course, if partner shows 5+ in a majorsuit, I'll simply go to game in that, crossing my fingers for it to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peachy Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 If bidding diamonds, I am puzzled by all the doublejumps to 3D when 2D is already a jump. I agree this is a bit strong for 2D (good six-carder, good opening hand) but jump to 3D is not solving the problem in this case.My choice is Dbl, then bid diamonds. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfa1010 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 I have for a long time thought that the standard approach of 2X=13-16 is wrong. It should be stronger, like 15-18 high card points + a 6-suiter. The point is that we live nicely with a relatively wide-range 1 bid, but the strong one-suiters are in trouble with standard methods. Starting with a double is ok with a somewhat flexible hand, but when the hand is not flexible, double is typically dreadful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 If bidding diamonds, I am puzzled by all the doublejumps to 3D when 2D is already a jump. I agree this is a bit strong for 2D (good six-carder, good opening hand) but jump to 3D is not solving the problem in this case.My choice is Dbl, then bid diamonds.Exactly. A double jump to 3♦ should show a sound preempt - a hand that might be too strong to preempt in 1st or 3rd positions but is fine as a constructive bid. 2♦ shows a good hand with a strong suit. Double followed by 2♦ shows a stronger hand with a strong suit. If partner passes out the double, expect a large plus. I have not thought about a cue-bid in 4th seat. Arguments can be made for Michaels or just strength showing. The classic way to show a monster hand is to double first and then cue-bid. But suppose you have a hand where you do not want partner to pass your takeout double? For example, a monster 4-4-5-0 hand or a hand with a 7 card suit and near game-in-hand? I would be interested in hearing some opinions on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 why do I not want partner to pass my takeout double when I have a monster 4450? Maybe we have no fit and they're going for 800. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 why do I not want partner to pass my takeout double when I have a monster 4450? Maybe we have no fit and they're going for 800.Allow me to rephrase: A monster 4450 with no defense, such as KQJT KQJT KQJT9 --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 just because we don't have aces doesn't mean they are going to make, in my little opinion. if partner has a penalty pass of 1♣ I'm quite happy to defend. Also if they run somewhere we're likely to murder them. to me it looks like we have quite a bit of defence against non-clubs, and partner will have good defence against clubs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 just because we don't have aces doesn't mean they are going to make, in my little opinion. if partner has a penalty pass of 1♣ I'm quite happy to defend. Also if they run somewhere we're likely to murder them. to me it looks like we have quite a bit of defence against non-clubs, and partner will have good defence against clubs I am not married to the 4450 example, but even in that case it is not hard to construct a hand where partner will pass out a double of 1♣ and we will do better playing the hand in another suit (quite possibly at the game level) than we will do defending 1♣x. 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.