Help settle an argument :)

[the_dude]

My partner and I vehemently disagreed on the "clear" action with this hand - so I promised I'd post it and let you guys be the arbiters :)

 

Swiss teams, love all, mediocre opponents

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt962hj87da32ck2&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1h2n3h4c4h5c]133|200[/hv]

 

We play unusual vs unusual, 3H is a simple, constructive raise (we play together infrequently so don't have in-depth agreements). Is Souths action clear? if so what?

 

Thanks in advance for your input.

[PhilKing]

Unanimous.

[lamford]

Unanimous.

Well; two of out of three. "Bridge" and "Hand" but not "Interesting".

[gszes]

Basic principle 4h is not a sacrifice over 4c--------that means we have entered into a forcing pass

 

auction. If we pass 5c that means we are willing to continue on over 5c. I doubt anyone would consider

 

this hand "offensive" in nature vs defensive with about 100% of our values in the opponents long suits.

 

X here is nothing more than offering an opinion about competing further. Our controls in the minors

 

might be reasonable if partner had shown slam interest but bidding at the 5 level should be more about is

 

it safer to play or take the penalty and run. Taking the penalty seems right here. If p was interested in slam

 

they should have done something aside from 4h.

 

 

 

[Hanoi5]

We seem to have 2 defensive tricks while partner opened and got to game. Double just shows we are minimum with defensive values, partner can still pull it out, in which case 6 would seem like an option, although I wouldn't risk it.

[the_dude]

Well; two of out of three. "Bridge" and "Hand" but not "Interesting".

 

Sorry - I only post because partner was so vehement that X was wrong and I promised I'd ask you guys here to settle it...

 

The full hand:

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt962hj87da32ck2&w=sk8754hat9d4c8765&n=saq3hkq6543dkt9ca&e=sh2dqj8765cqjt943&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1h2n3h4c4h5cdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Partner's argument is that South is too good to X, North was on his way to bidding 5H but the X caused him to back off. I think X is clear.

 

Thanks again all for your input.

[mcphee]

Although I would not dble 5C I can not say I feel ddle is a poor choice as responder. I know this is a F pass situation, not sure I want to put on the brakes with dble. I doubt partner is looking for slam when they did nothing over 4C and my hand is not so offensive in nature, but it may not produce a wealth of defense either. I like pass.

[ggwhiz]

Best defense is a strong offence and North dropped the ball by bidding a mere 4♥ and then expecting you to cater to a slammish hand?

 

4♦ can respect a sign off and 4♠ if you can't do that in your style does have some risk but not much.

[ArtK78]

When partner bid 4♥, slam was no longer an issue. Besides, do you really want to be in slam on these cards?

 

The South hand should double 5♣. I don't think this is close. South's values are good on both offense and defense. If all North needs is two tricks to make 5♥, he is probably bidding again.

[MrAce]

Whoever thinks this is a FP either plays FP with the worst agreements or don't know what 3♥ meant (or 3♥ is their stronger raise). Regardless though, FP or not you dbl with S hand, period.

 

1-Pd bidding 4♥ does not mean we had a solid 4♥. Particularly in distributional hands if he thought we had a small chance to make game and even if we can not make it could still be better than 4♣ he will bid 4♥. In this auction 4♥ does not set up a FP.

 

2-We have no reason to think they are saving, just because they bid 5♣ over 4♥. It could make sense if they previously sit on 4♣ and then bid 5 over our 4♥. How do we know E was not about to bid 5, had our pd passed ?

 

3- Pd did not show any interest in slam whatsoever previous round. How can S who made a limit bid, weakest raise of all fit showing bids (pretty much equal to 1♥-2♥), possibly decide that he is in FP auction ?

 

Most shocking reply to me is the one that says "I would not dbl 5♣" Jesus!

 

You showed something like 6-9 hcp (apprx) and you have 2 defensive tricks, both of them in opponent suits, behind the suit holder, and only 3 card support to pd, a balanced hand and pd opened 1♥ first seat and you would not DBL 5♣ ?

[mfa1010]

Partner's argument is that South is too good to X, North was on his way to bidding 5H but the X caused him to back off. I think X is clear.

 

South may be too good to just bid 3♥. After 5♣ there is no force, so the limited hand can't be too good, X just shows good defense.

[monikrazy]

3H and double both seem very reasonable

 

This is the type of hand where it seems like we would greatly prefer a negative double to show spades (treating it like 4 card without a top honor) but playing unusual vs unusual 3H is slight underbid and 3d slight overbid. Odds are that partner has something helpful opposite in spades with E showing the minors.

 

Edit: Also would tend to agree that this is not a forcing pass, mainly because the 2NT range can be very wide here and we do not know that ops are trying to sacrifice.

[Fluffy]

South's values are good on both offense and defense.

I differ, ♣K will normaly be useless on offence. Also ♥Jxx is a very bad offensive holding

[HighLow21]

Wait. Why try to take 11 tricks rather than 3+? When all of your high cards are in righty's suit? Against a bad split in diamonds and with 3 poorish trumps? Double is clear as day.

[Lurpoa]

"People do not grow, they just learn how to act in public"<br style="color: rgb(142, 142, 142); font-size: 11px; line-height: 13px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);"><br style="color: rgb(142, 142, 142); font-size: 11px; line-height: 13px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">"Genius has its own limitations, however stupidity is boundless" <br style="color: rgb(142, 142, 142); font-size: 11px; line-height: 13px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">

Disclaimer: this post is not intended to offend anyone who spews constant drivel. --PhilKing (I Stole from Arend's sig)

 

<br style="color: rgb(142, 142, 142); font-size: 11px; line-height: 13px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_images/BridgeBase_Ehren_v1/snapback.pngeagles123, on 2014-February-04, 19:22, said:

 

gosh given your bbf manner would love to see your teaching LOL if i was a novice i'd be running a million miles from you

Next time I also wil add a picture of my Mystère.

Just a joke, not intended to offend....

[bluecalm]

I don't think it's FP situation.

That being said I double as I have a lot of defense and don't want partner to bid 5H.

[Cyberyeti]

Best defense is a strong offence and North dropped the ball by bidding a mere 4♥ and then expecting you to cater to a slammish hand?

 

4♦ can respect a sign off and 4♠ if you can't do that in your style does have some risk but not much.

 

Was just going to post this, and found somebody had beaten me to it.

 

N should bid 4♦ not 4♥. Now pass is forcing, I'm not sure it is after a 4♥ bid.

 

What you should do after 4♦-5♣ is more interesting, it's a clear double after 4♥-5♣.

[nige1]

Agree with majority that this is not a forcing-pass situation but double is better than pass. Had partner bid 4♦ (last train or whatever) instead of 4♥, then you might well be in an FP context but double still seems best (in theory).

Agree with Lurpoa about remarks that are deliberately hurtful to individuals. IMO, we shouldn't upvote them, however amusing.

[Zelandakh]

Agree with Lurpoa about remarks that are deliberately hurtful to individuals. IMO, we shouldn't upvote them, however amusing.

Is that what the post says? It was a little difficult to decipher with all the tags flying about, especially considering that none of the quotes within it have anything to do with this thread. It was tempting to report it to have a mod tidy it up and move it to the correct thread.

[whereagles]

Dbl and take the money.

[ArtK78]

Agree with Lurpoa about remarks that are deliberately hurtful to individuals. IMO, we shouldn't upvote them, however amusing.

 

Agree with Lurpoa about what? All she did was quote MrAce's signature.

 

Her post has nothing to do with this thread and is totally out of place.

[MrAce]

Agree with Lurpoa about remarks that are deliberately hurtful to individuals. IMO, we shouldn't upvote them, however amusing.

 

 

What strikes me the most is someone agreeing with Lurpoa and finishing his sentence with a complaint about upvoting. Who would guess this except than a siggy which says stupidity is boundless. Never the less a great candidate for "most hopeless and clueless comments" topic.

 

Did you really think what upvoted was my siggy ?

 

 

I also don't understand why would my siggy hurt anyone,since none of my siggies have a specific name addressed. Unless of course the offended people see themselves very well defined in these phrases, http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

 

But the rules and laws of so called civilized society has changed so much in a way, now we live in a society where we are more concerned about the civil rights of abusers than the abused ones and start seeing the abused ones as abusers. Then we forget that Lurpoa upvotes daily until she runs out of her daily upvote available, and we forget that every member in forums lost their privilege to downvote because of her, then we forget that she contributes nothing except than "be the love with you" or enlarged ♥ symbols or "discuss it with your pd" and see these as her rights while see those whoever reacts to her abuse, as abusers. We can even have a momentarily insanity and agree with her even though we did not understand what she tried to say and what was up voted . When the momentarily insanity lasts longer than couple seconds we may even go head and post this.

 

Interesting logic, but definitely consistent with your views about bridge.

[Lurpoa]

Agree with Lurpoa about what? All she did was quote MrAce's signature.

 

Her post has nothing to do with this thread and is totally out of place.

 

Just that they take a lot of place.

and a lot of colour

 

... well for somebody who doen't like hearts.....even little tittle one :♥

 

 

PS: i keep the Mystère-car for next post. Too much room taken here

 

 

[Lurpoa]

LOL- Logic :)

 

NOT TRUE,

 

and as always ....(censured)

 

Your modern society, seems to be the one, were the one who shouts most and loudest is King.

 

What strikes me the most is someone agreeing with Lurpoa and finishing his sentence with a complaint about upvoting. Who would guess this except than a siggy which says stupidity is boundless. Never the less a great candidate for "most hopeless and clueless comments" topic.

 

Did you really think what upvoted was my siggy ?

 

 

I also don't understand why would my siggy hurt anyone,since none of my siggies have a specific name addressed. Unless of course the offended people see themselves very well defined in these phrases, http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

 

But the rules and laws of so called civilized society has changed so much in a way, now we live in a society where we are more concerned about the civil rights of abusers than the abused ones and start seeing the abused ones as abusers. Then we forget that Lurpoa upvotes daily until she runs out of her daily upvote available, and we forget that every member in forums lost their privilege to downvote because of her, then we forget that she contributes nothing except than "be the love with you" or enlarged ♥ symbols or "discuss it with your pd" and see these as her rights while see those whoever reacts to her abuse, as abusers. We can even have a momentarily insanity and agree with her even though we did not understand what she tried to say and what was up voted . When the momentarily insanity lasts longer than couple seconds we may even go head and post this.

 

Interesting logic, but definitely consistent with your views about bridge.

[Antrax]

As an aside, I wrote a Greasemonkey script to hide signatures on this forum. If anyone's interested, it's below (in spoiler tags to not stretch the page too much). If you only want to remove signatures (and not the "interests" field under a poster's name) just comment out or delete the last line (RemoveInterests())

 

 

// ==UserScript==
// @name           Remove BBF sigs
// @namespace      Doron
// ==/UserScript==

function removeElement(el, attribs, attribValue) 
{

// Get element tag

var div = document.getElementsByTagName(el);

var myAttribs = "";

	for (var i = div.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {

		// Get attribute

		myAttribs = div[i].getAttribute(attribs);

		// Get attribute value

		if(myAttribs == attribValue){

			div[i].parentNode.removeChild(div[i]);

		}

	}

};

function removeInterests()
{
var user_fields = document.getElementsByClassName("user_fields");
for (var j = user_fields.length - 1; j >= 0; --j)
{
 	var fieldList   = user_fields[j].getElementsByTagName("span");
  for (var i = 0; i < fieldList.length; ++i)
  {
	  var txt = fieldList[i].textContent;
	  if ("Interests:" == txt)
	  {
		  fieldList[i].parentNode.removeChild(fieldList[i+1]);
		  fieldList[i].parentNode.removeChild(fieldList[i]);
		 break;
	  } 
  }
}
}
removeElement('div', 'class', 'signature');
removeInterests();