awm Posted June 18, 2011 Report Share Posted June 18, 2011 Several people have called east's bid pushy, but to me the hand seems too strong to merely invite. I would certainly force to game. The hand in isolation is quite good. If I was just told "partner opened 1♣, how good is this hand?" I would agree with game force as an initial evaluation. However, there has been a round of bidding before the actual decision needs to be made. This round of bidding has established that partner has hearts and clubs, that no one seems to be bidding spades, and that I have diamonds. If I was given that partner opened 1♣ and he has a singleton or void in diamonds then I would definitely not want to force game on this hand! Do I know partner has short diamonds? While he doesn't necessarily have to, it seems hard to believe that opponents have eleven or more spades and multiple chances to bid them at the one level, and never did. If we therefore think partner has 3+♠ then short diamonds are looking very likely (especially if you play Walsh and partner might rebid 1NT with 3424 or 3433). In any case, if you think that East's hand is a clear game force then I very much think you should vote "no blame." The apparent misunderstanding about 2♠ was not material to the result on the hand. West's first two calls (1♣, 1♥) are without fault and once East decides to force game 5♦ seems the best available contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedbid1 Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 The hand in isolation is quite good. If I was just told "partner opened 1♣, how good is this hand?" I would agree with game force as an initial evaluation. However, there has been a round of bidding before the actual decision needs to be made. This round of bidding has established that partner has hearts and clubs, that no one seems to be bidding spades, and that I have diamonds. If I was given that partner opened 1♣ and he has a singleton or void in diamonds then I would definitely not want to force game on this hand! Do I know partner has short diamonds? While he doesn't necessarily have to, it seems hard to believe that opponents have eleven or more spades and multiple chances to bid them at the one level, and never did. If we therefore think partner has 3+♠ then short diamonds are looking very likely (especially if you play Walsh and partner might rebid 1NT with 3424 or 3433). In any case, if you think that East's hand is a clear game force then I very much think you should vote "no blame." The apparent misunderstanding about 2♠ was not material to the result on the hand. West's first two calls (1♣, 1♥) are without fault and once East decides to force game 5♦ seems the best available contract. Playing pick-up one must forgive both the East who invites with this hand and the East who forces. It's a tweener, & one would really like to know if pard tends to open light or not. West must be forgiven for refusing an invitational sequence, after all, with his non-fitting good textured 13 count. Your hypothetical examples confuse me -- why r u not ALSO being told, as East, that West has the majors double stopped & his stiff di is the Jack? Surely then u r wanting to be in three nt on these cards? Surely then u r thinking that the worst that can happen is 4 di, 5 cl, or 5 di, all of which would make on a lot of layouts? No, the clear culprit is West. Pulling 3nt seems unforgivable to me when he has already shown his 4 crd sp suit, and he has a fill card for his pard's suit, and no extras other than all that lovely texture. If pard wants to be in three NT i am quite proud of this dummy. And 3 NT ought to make for them, as long as East has the foresight to start on the hrts quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elianna Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 And 3 NT ought to make for them, as long as East has the foresight to start on the hrts quickly. 2♠ + 2♥ + 1♦ = FAIL and that's being very generous to declarer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 I really like that 3D rebid idea proposed by awm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedbid1 Posted June 20, 2011 Report Share Posted June 20, 2011 2♠ + 2♥ + 1♦ = FAIL and that's being very generous to declarer. U r quite right, unless the defenders r of the same level as the declaring side appears to be, in which case they might not start on sp (assuming sp to be 4-3 or 4-4 for dclarer), and North when in with the hrt j may not play sp either, as no entry & dummy's sp r sick to lead into... one can dream... Swap either of the pointy tens to the other side, and 3nt is pretty good contract, so worth bidding.. but as i mentioned before, i would rather play from West than East on most layouts.0 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.