lmilne Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 [hv=pc=n&s=skqh53dkqjt542ck5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1hp]133|200[/hv] Two or three? What is the smallest change you would have to make to the hand to change you into the other category? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanoff Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 2♦ stinks, 3♦ is possible1nt 15-17 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Toughie. Either could work out on a particular deal. 3 is right on playing strength, but p could well put us in 3N with little play. I'd be happier with xxKQAQJTxxxKx i.e. improve my suit a little and put the KQ tight where I have reasonable expectation they're pulling weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Two for me. Fine suit, but low on defense, no shortness, nothing in partner's suit, and KQ tight is a minus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 2♦ stinks, 3♦ is possible1nt 15-17 ?This is a trifecta. Not the good kind, IMO. Easy to choose the 2D rebid. The LTC is misleading as a guide here. Partner needs the Diamond ace or a game-force in his own right for us to have a sniff at game in NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 I want ♦A to have a shot at running for no losers so ♠KQ♥xx♦AQJ10xxx♣Qx would be 3♦ for me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 3♦ is canonical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Is this really an expert topic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmilne Posted January 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Is this really an expert topic? So far I'm 50/50 with the top players in my country, with two players whose names you would recognize taking opposite sides. Would love to hear your thoughts (and which side you take). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Two please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 The credential committee granted the OP full rights to post in the "expert" forum after his result in the World Pairs final in Sanya (they had apparently ignored earlier Australian national titles as "irrelevant" ;)). Anyway, I bid 2♦. I don't really agree with playing-strength based jump rebids when you need so much for game. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gszes Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 [hv=pc=n&s=skqh53dkqjt542ck5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1hp]133|200[/hv] Two or three? What is the smallest change you would have to make to the hand to change you into the other category? 2d 5d a long way off and if p cannot move over 2d odds of game are exceedingly thin. Smallest change for3d for me change the KQ Kx into Ax Ax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lhlyr123 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 2D，一副没有快速赢墩的牌，需要同伴更多的支持才能成局。这是一副有足够赢墩的牌。也是敌方容易犯防守错误的牌。但我更愿意让同伴保持对我的叫牌有信心。 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 2D，一副没有快速赢墩的牌，需要同伴更多的支持才能成局。这是一副有足够赢墩的牌。也是敌方容易犯防守错误的牌。但我更愿意让同伴保持对我的叫牌有信心。Too bad I can't read Chinese (or whatever it is), but I agree with the conclusion ;) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Too bad I can't read Chinese (or whatever it is), but I agree with the conclusion ;) Google translates it as: A no quick tricks cards, need more support to peer into the office. This is a card has enough tricks. The enemy is easy to make a defensive mistake cards. But I prefer to let my fellow maintain bid with confidence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 And to make it a 3♦ rebid, you would have to change the club king to the ace. Then you are far more likely to make 3NT with 9 fast tricks opposite two red aces, for instance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 [hv=pc=n&s=skqh53dkqjt542ck5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1hp]133|200|Two or three?What is the smallest change you would have to make to the hand to change you into the other category?[/hv] 1N (if 15-17) = 10. 3♦ = 9. 2♦ = 8. 2♣ = 6. 1♠ = 5. IMO wanoff is right that, with 7.5 playing tricks, 2♦ is a bit pathetic and deserves to miss a reasonable game -- or to have opponents successfully compete in a black suit.I disagree with Vampyr: IMO, bidding problems are usually appreciated by both beginners and experts; it's probably wise to have a Beginner forum for the few posters capable of realistic self-assessment; but otherwise it would be easier to navigate orthogonal categories that include Bidding problems, Play problems, and System discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 And to make it a 3♦ rebid, you would have to change the club king to the ace. Then you are far more likely to make 3NT with 9 fast tricks opposite two red aces, for instance. Lack of aces is probably the only reason to be conservative about this hand. While it might work out just fine, I know so little about partner's hand that I'm not going to risk making what, by most standards, is an underbid. Still, it's a very nice hand for a sim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 The scale of Nigel keeps surprising me, this time it looks like a Gauss curve with the top at 8... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr1303 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 I must admit 1S or 2C don't occur to me. I'm an overbidder so I bid 3D. My partners always have good cards :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 [hv=pc=n&s=skqh53dkqjt542ck5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1hp]133|200[/hv] Two or three? What is the smallest change you would have to make to the hand to change you into the other category? I would bid 2♦ I don't know who you are and whether you are an expert or not. But it does not matter. Please ignore the suggestions/comments about this not being an expert topic. I personally think it was a nice hand to listen to expert opinions about how to evaluate it. I am sorry that it is hijacked. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 I wouldn't have any problem iff my partner decides to open a strong 1NT with this. It iwll have its downsides with thin games (specially if partner insists on playing 4M), but hiding this hand to opponents in 3NT can be the key. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted February 4, 2015 Report Share Posted February 4, 2015 If 1NT (15-17) were an option, I'd probably stick to that. I prefer 2♦ to 3♦ and this is one of the few instances I do an 'Alvin Roth'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovera Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 I bid 3♦ with this 7th and solid suit it being points in second level (17-19). The more little changing that allow me to bid 2♦ is lacking of Jack of diamond. 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.