Sanity check 4-6

[awm]

Hi Adam :) I am missing something, what does

3♠-X-P-4♥

P-5♦

or

3♠-X-4♠-P

P-5♦

 

show? I mean may be one needs better suit for this, but is that really a different type of hand ?

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

 

This is not the way to show a strong one-suited hand over a preempt. Doubling and then bidding a suit shows a strong flexible hand; typical would be something like a 0364 or 1363 pattern with a lot of strength. These types of hands are actually quite common; strong one-suiters are rarer and can easily be shown by jump overcalls (which are not weak over the preempt of course).

[Yu18772]

This is not the way to show a strong one-suited hand over a preempt. Doubling and then bidding a suit shows a strong flexible hand; typical would be something like a 0364 or 1363 pattern with a lot of strength. These types of hands are actually quite common; strong one-suiters are rarer and can easily be shown by jump overcalls (which are not weak over the preempt of course).

 

Thanks! Good to know....then I would change it to 5♦.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

 

 

[nige1]

Playing standard 2/1

• If partner opens 1♣ what would you do with ♠ Jxx ♥ Txxxxx ♦ xxx ♣ x ?
• If you respond 1♥. what do you do after 1♣ (P) 1♥ (P); 2♠ (P) ?

[lalldonn]

Playing standard 2/1

• If partner opens 1♣ what would you do with ♠ Jxx ♥ Txxxxx ♦ xxx ♣ x ?
• If you respond 1♥. what do you do after 1♣ (P) 1♥ (P); 2♠ (P) ?

I don't see what this has to do with your problems, but I would respond 1♥ then pass the (game forcing) 2♠ bid.

[JLOGIC]

lol gnasher, I thought it was funny, but people don't expect it from you I guess :P

[ArtK78]

Just a comment about the references to LTC.

 

LTC does not suck. But surely you will think it does if you try to use it for bidding notrump contracts.

 

LTC does not apply to notrump bidding. Use point count. It is far more reliable for bidding a balanced hand opposite a balanced hand.

[nige1]

Thank you all for your instructive comments. FWIW

[3] Partner has ♠ xx ♥ xxxx ♦ KJ ♣ Axxxx. I overbid 3N which was a lucky make (♦ are 2-2) I now agree 3♦ is enough.

[4] Partner has ♦ x and ♣ KJxx . I bid 5♦ on the mountain. RHO has ♦ K so 6♦ makes.

[5] I held the other hand ♠ Kxx ♥ xx ♦ xxxxx ♣ Qxx, so 2N is high enough. Like Ben Lessard, partner jump-rebid 2♥. We ended up too high.

[mikl_plkcc]

IMO:

 

4. 2♦, certainly. I reserve 3♦ as a forcing bid, which shows extras. I plan to rebid 3♦ after 2♦, showing exactly this.

 

5. 4♦. I don't feel safe going to 5♦.

 

6. 2NT, certainly. This is the standard way of bidding balanced hands with 18-19 HCPs.

[han]

Wow, two people that took gnasher seriously, that's rather insulting! I guess it is Andy's fault for building up an honest reputation.

 

On all three hands I agreed with awm (3D, 5D, 2NT), and thought the decisions were quite clear.

[phil_20686]

Strange question. What does this have to do with 2/1 ?

Do you know any natural system where a second round jump shift in a new suit by an unlimited opener is not played as forcing to game?

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Yes, its not uncommon to play it as a mini-splinter in acol, and 1x-1y-1z as natural and forcing.

[SteveMoe]

If

♠xxx,♥AKx,♦Axx,♣AKxx

 

has seven losers how many does

 

♠xxx,♥KQx,♦Qxx,♣KQxx

 

have?

 

Rainer Herrmann

Well put Rainer.

Last I looked ♠Axxx ♥Axx ♦Axx ♣Axx appears to be 8 losers but is not: there are 4 Aces more than 0 queens, we adjust 4/2 = 2 losers, so 8-2 = 6 losers total.

I see the quoted hand having 5.5 losers.