BBO Discussion Forums: am I getting old? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

am I getting old?

#1 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,027
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2010-July-29, 05:02

93
T74
AK6543
64

3rd seat favourable Matchpoints. you're not allowed to open 1NT in case you're considering it.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#2 User is offline   Fluffy 

  • World International Master without a clue
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,404
  • Joined: 2003-November-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:madrid

Posted 2010-July-29, 05:03

I'd always open 3♦, don't see this as a real problem.
BridgeGod: my personal website with interactive problems and articles
0

#3 User is offline   tgoodwinsr 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: 2010-July-25

Posted 2010-July-29, 05:05

Are you getting old?

Yes, we all are.
0

#4 User is offline   Free 

  • mmm Duvel
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,728
  • Joined: 2003-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Duvel, Whisky

Posted 2010-July-29, 05:18

3♦
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
0

#5 User is offline   bhtf 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 2004-May-18
  • Location:center of France

Posted 2010-July-29, 05:19

am old too :)

3♦ or 1♣ (yes one club)

friendly to all
0

#6 User is offline   effervesce 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: 2007-March-28

Posted 2010-July-29, 05:20

3♦, 2♦, 1♦, are all fine.
Ming

--Always remember you're unique. Just like everyone else.
0

#7 User is offline   hotShot 

  • Axxx Axx Axx Axx
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,976
  • Joined: 2003-August-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2010-July-29, 05:36

If 2♦ is agreed to be weak 2, I'll do that (or any agreement that shows a ♦ weak 2).
Otherwise I'll pass.

I feel older already....
0

#8 User is offline   Rossoneri 

  • Wabbit
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 974
  • Joined: 2007-January-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 2010-July-29, 06:55

2♦, and my partner will tell me off later for being conservative.
SCBA National TD, EBU Club TD

Unless explicitly stated, none of my views here can be taken to represent SCBA or any other organizations.
0

#9 User is offline   655321 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,502
  • Joined: 2007-December-22

Posted 2010-July-29, 06:57

3♦, second choice 1♦.

Not pass.
That's impossible. No one can give more than one hundred percent. By definition that is the most anyone can give.
0

#10 User is offline   Codo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,373
  • Joined: 2003-March-15
  • Location:Hamburg, Germany
  • Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball

Posted 2010-July-29, 07:49

So I have an opening which shows 6 diamonds with 6-9 HCPS. Ideally it would be best if my HCPS are in this suit and I have no side 4 card major. Now I have this hand. Which question did you ask??????

So lets assume that 2 ♦ or 2 ♣ are both not avaiable as weak twos in diamonds- easy again, I open 3 ♦ frequently with 6 card suits.
Kind Regards

Roland

Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
0

#11 User is offline   jillybean 

  • hooked
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,863
  • Joined: 2003-November-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Multi

Posted 2010-July-29, 07:55

To the 3♦ bidders, are you bypassing 2♦ or is 2♦ something other than weak 6 ♦'s in your system?
"And no matter what methods you play, it is essential, for anyone aspiring to learn to be a good player, to learn the importance of bidding shape properly. MikeH
"100% certain that many excellent players would disagree. This is far more about style/judgment than right vs. wrong." Fred
0

#12 User is offline   Bbradley62 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,542
  • Joined: 2010-February-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY, USA

Posted 2010-July-29, 08:37

3♦. I would bid 2♦ in first or second, or at unfavorable vulnerability.
0

#13 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2010-July-29, 08:43

jillybean, on Jul 29 2010, 07:55 AM, said:

To the 3♦ bidders, are you bypassing 2♦ or is 2♦ something other than weak 6 ♦'s in your system?

2♦ happens to be something else, but that is only a coincidence to me, in third seat at these conditions.

I keep harping about preemptor having the expected number of cards in the suit of his preempt; but 3m in 3rd-fav is an exception, even for me.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#14 User is offline   655321 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,502
  • Joined: 2007-December-22

Posted 2010-July-29, 09:00

jillybean, on Jul 29 2010, 08:55 AM, said:

To the 3♦ bidders,  are you bypassing 2♦ or is 2♦ something other than weak 6 ♦'s in your system?

The point is to make a bid that puts as much pressure as possible on 4th hand, while hopefully not offering 1100 on a platter. So the fact that you have a 2♦ bid available is not relevant if you think that a 3♦ opening will put more pressure on LHO with relative safety.

Somebody younger than gwnn might even (for a brief moment) consider a 4♦ opening.
That's impossible. No one can give more than one hundred percent. By definition that is the most anyone can give.
0

#15 User is offline   pooltuna 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,814
  • Joined: 2009-July-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Orleans

Posted 2010-July-29, 09:19

gwnn, on Jul 29 2010, 06:02 AM, said:

93
T74
AK6543
64

3rd seat favourable Matchpoints. you're not allowed to open 1NT in case you're considering it.

I would choose 2♦ if that is an option because the hand is too good for 3♦ :blink:
"Tell me of your home world, Usul"
the Freman, Chani from the move "Dune"

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

George Bernard Shaw
0

#16 User is online   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,625
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2010-July-29, 09:45

2♦ for me, would consider pass if a weak two was not available. There are many bad features to this hand: bad spots, flat shape, two defensive tricks (maybe). If this is 3♦, is there a six-card suit that is 2♦? Anyway I think the risk of going -300 against air is too high here, and there is also a chance bidding three pushes opps into a game that luckily makes when all suits break for them.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
0

#17 User is offline   jdonn 

  • - - T98765432 AQT8
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,085
  • Joined: 2005-June-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 2010-July-29, 09:58

2♦, I have a 2♦ bid not a 3♦ bid. My second choice may be 1NT but I don't want to break the rules.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
0

#18 User is offline   jallerton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,796
  • Joined: 2008-September-12
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2010-July-29, 10:12

How can 1NT not be allowed? Are we playing some game that isn't bridge?


Sorry that post was from FrancesHinden, I forgot to log out as jallerton and this forum won't allow posts to be deleted.
0

#19 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,027
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2010-July-29, 10:20

FrancesHinden, on Jul 29 2010, 04:12 PM, said:

How can 1NT not be allowed?  Are we playing some game that isn't bridge?


Sorry that post was from FrancesHinden, I forgot to log out as jallerton and this forum won't allow posts to be deleted.

No, I just don't allow it.

I found that I psyched too much with too little success, so I just stopped doing it until further notice
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#20 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2010-July-29, 10:26

I'd open 3♦ and I don't consider it particularly aggressive. As with all such actions, the most important thing is that partner knows what to expect, and also what not to expect.

awm, on Jul 29 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

is there a six-card suit that is 2♦

Perhaps something like KQx xx Qxxxxx xx, where the side values added to the poor suit make 3♦ unattractive.

aguahombre said:

I keep harping about preemptor having the expected number of cards in the suit of his preempt; but 3m in 3rd-fav is an exception, even for me.

Why is that an exception? It just means that the expected number of cards is 6, or 6-7, or 5-6, or whatever number is expected in your style.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-July-29, 10:29

... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0
  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users