sceptic Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 [hv=d=w&v=n&n=s972hj53dj642c743&w=sqt5haq984daq53ck&e=s84hkt7dt987ct865&s=sakj63h62dkcaqj92]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] West North East South 1♥ Pass Pass 2♥ Pass 2♠ Pass 4♠ Pass Pass Pass ok this one, I was forced to bid I would like to know what you think of this . also I went down 2 should I have seen the Play of stiff K clubs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 4♠ is really bad. Don't bid your hand twice. To clarify - the balancing cue bid (the way I play) shows a strong 2 suiter; roughly 4-5 losers at minimum. Hey - check it out - thats what you got (nice bid :) ) ! Partner's 2♠ is pass or correct with zero interest in anything unless you have extras. You don't. Lucky the K♣ drops otherwise 3 is in jeopardy. Looks like the opponents gave you a greek gift - A♥, heart to the K, club through. Why'd you hook? You know that the K♣ is offside on the auction. To bid over 2♠ insults partner's intelligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 Partner's 2♠ is pass or correct with zero interest in anything unless you have extras. You don't. So even the 3♠ I would bid would be bad, huh? Probably would be. I recently did the same thing he did with something like: AKxxxxAxAKxxx And it still went down one. So it looks like I'm too aggressive with these. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoob Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 ease up on sceptic - he wasn't the one bidding 4♠, he just had to declare it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 ease up on sceptic - he wasn't the one bidding 4♠, he just had to declare it. Ack - OK - its Sceptic pard's who lost his way here. Didn't mean to imply Sceptic did anything wrong - misread who was declaring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 assuming 2H was michaels i dont agree with the strength requirements phil has imposed on the 2H bid. I think your hand could be weaker, so 3C would be a reasonable bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 assuming 2H was michaels i dont agree with the strength requirements phil has imposed on the 2H bid. I think your hand could be weaker, so 3C would be a reasonable bid. I'm still playing what Lawrence suggested book on balancing; that a Q bid is an unspecified 2 suiter with a real good hand. I'm sure its not standard - although I dont what is either. I dont think theres a lot of reason to play a weak or even intermediate Michaels in the balance chair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 i see alot of merit to bidding michaels with AQTxx x xx AQ9xx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 i see alot of merit to bidding michaels with AQTxx x xx AQ9xx Well.....its a 5 loser hand, but the hooks look to be off there. I think I'd be happy with 1♠ and see if pard can move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 does anyone play hi/low anymore, with michael's and unt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartA Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 assuming 2H was michaels i dont agree with the strength requirements phil has imposed on the 2H bid. I think your hand could be weaker, so 3C would be a reasonable bid. I agree with Justin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 I´m with Phil, there isn´t much need of reopening weak with a 2 suiter when you aren´t strong, since chances of opponents competing high have decreased drastically. The 4♠ bid is of course off the way, he didn´t even know partner had fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 Nooooooo... don't move to golf. Golf is very boring. At least on TV, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 michaels is a constructive bid, not a destructive bid. I dont care if the opps are going to compete, the fact that i can show 5-5 in 2 suits dramatically increases our chances of getting to the best contract, and slim games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 I think 4♠ is too much, but pass is not enough as well. You have a VERY nice hand, I'd still bid 3♣ so partner can make a good decision now. He'll bid 3♠ ofcourse, and that's what we'll play (-1 or = probably). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daswallow Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 3♠ should make unless they lead a club, then you have to guess well, tho risk of ruff may make you get it right.On another lead, you will be able to find out about the K♥ so play to drop the K♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts