What is your plan. Here's how I started:
Phi Slamma Jamma
#1
Posted 2010-December-01, 10:00
What is your plan. Here's how I started:
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#2
Posted 2010-December-01, 10:14
Ok...saw the spoiler: cuebid, again routine method of delaying the decision, while maybe learning something.
I can just see partner over there with Jxxx xxx xxx xxx cursing under his breath as I propel us ever higher....but KQxxx xxx xxx xx will bid the same way.
I can't help it... I bid 5♠.
#3
Posted 2010-December-01, 10:23
Even if it is taken as nat, I have my bid.
#4
Posted 2010-December-01, 11:37
#5
Posted 2010-December-01, 11:44
Echognome, on 2010-December-01, 11:37, said:
I don't want to be in slam opposite Kxxx in spades....I do opposite KJxxx. Keycard (as is so often the case) doesn't tell me what I need to know. 5♠ is simple and unambiguous (we can't be asking for a club control....we wouldn't have bid 4♣ then 5♠ if that were the issue...we'd have bid an immediate 5♠....partner's 4♠ did not show any extra length).
What I want to know is whether partner thinks his spades are good in the context of having a bad hand...not whether he has the spade K or KQ.
#6
Posted 2010-December-01, 12:01
If double then 4NT is Keycard, presumably
4♣-something
4NT
#7
Posted 2010-December-01, 12:04
Phil, on 2010-December-01, 10:00, said:
In The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock, T S ELlot, said:
5♠ = 10, _P = 9, 4N = 8, 5♣ = 7, 5♥ = 5, 6♠ = 4, 5N = 4.
Pass is attractive but seems cowardly. Does 5♠ ask about ♠ or ♣? One way of finding out is to bid it
#8
Posted 2010-December-01, 12:29
I agree with Andy that one of the 4NT sequences should be natural and one of them should be keycard. I do think that 3NT here has a pretty wide range, although this hand is too strong for it. So to show the moose, you have to double first and then do something else. To me it is double and then NT that is natural, although I'm not sure whether this falls under double and 3NT or double and 4NT.
#10
Posted 2010-December-01, 14:09
Echognome, on 2010-December-01, 12:29, said:
Most of us play the double of 3C as takeout.
- hrothgar
#11
Posted 2010-December-01, 14:16
han, on 2010-December-01, 14:09, said:
That was my presumption. But partner may still pass with a balanced hand no?
#12
Posted 2010-December-01, 14:40
- hrothgar
#13
Posted 2010-December-01, 16:08
Why can't we just bid 5♥ now? Would that be something really technical? I don't think so, so that's my choice. If we had just hearts, we could have bid 5♥ over 3♣ or over 3♠.
A 5NT bash is also possible, planning to bid 6♥ as a choice of majors. We could also go low and pass. Very annoying problem.
#14
Posted 2010-December-01, 16:24
mfa1010, on 2010-December-01, 16:08, said:
Why can't we just bid 5♥ now? Would that be something really technical? I don't think so, so that's my choice. If we had just hearts, we could have bid 5♥ over 3♣ or over 3♠.
A 5NT bash is also possible, planning to bid 6♥ as a choice of majors. We could also go low and pass. Very annoying problem.
We may not be able to count on 5 spades for the 3♠ call, but I think we can safely ignore his having 4 of a red suit when he rebids 4♠. Now the odds seem extremely high that he has 5+ spades.....not enough for me to keycard over, however, since I think he will raise 5♠ to 6 everytime that we'd get to a good six after keycard, and we'll stay at the 5 level when he has, for example, Kxxx xxx xxx xxx. Now, even 5♠ will be too high, but it rates to be better than 6♠.
As for bidding 5♥....I think that that suggests a better suit, altho equivalent hand than we have. I admit that this isn't based on a great deal of real life experience with this sequence. Maybe Ax AKQxxx AKx AQ? IOW, I wouldn't expect partner to correct hearts to spades when he is 5=2 majors.
#15
Posted 2010-December-01, 17:46
Double first seems obvious, as does 4♣. After that I am sorely tempted by 5♥. Partner should know this is flexible, otherwise I would have bid 5♥ over 3♣ or over 3♠. I agree with mikeh that partner is unlikely to correct with 5-2, so that's bad, but 5♥ works opposite 4-3 and some 5-3 hands.
Greatly prefer 5♠ as a second choice to 4NT.
What about 5♣ over 4♠? Would this show this sort of hand with doubt about strain? Maybe I would do that instead, except in real life 5-major is probably less ambiguous.]
#16
Posted 2010-December-01, 18:18
I bought a very acceptable 9xxx Txx QJx Kxx (haha RHO) but trump went 4-1, so I made only 11. Just what exactly is he supposed to do over 4♣ I wonder?
Perhaps there isn't a lot of benefit in trying to dissect these auctions but it would be nice to have some governing rules.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#17
Posted 2010-December-01, 18:48
TimG, on 2010-December-01, 13:03, said:
(3♣)-3N
(3♣)-DBL-3♠-3N
(3♣)-4N
(3♣)-DBL-3♠-4N
to be natural. Have I listed them in ascending order of strength shown? And, do any of them really do this hand justice?
I think dbl-3♠-3NT has the same upper limit as a direct 3NT, but with more interest in a suit contract - something like a 3442 shape with ♣Ax.
By analogy, maybe dbl-3♠-4NT is more suit-oriented than a direct 4NT.
#18
Posted 2010-December-01, 18:50
Phil, on 2010-December-01, 18:18, said:
Bid 4♦, or perhaps 4♥.
#19
Posted 2010-December-01, 18:54
Phil, on 2010-December-01, 18:18, said:
I bought a very acceptable 9xxx Txx QJx Kxx (haha RHO) but trump went 4-1, so I made only 11. Just what exactly is he supposed to do over 4♣ I wonder?
Perhaps there isn't a lot of benefit in trying to dissect these auctions but it would be nice to have some governing rules.
Ii don't have any idea what he 'should' do, but I (think I)know what I would do: I'd have bid 4♦. Partner is either coming in spades, in which case my detour into diamonds won't matter, or he may be about to bid 4♥, showing a hand too good to double and then bid 4♥, and I will pass and risk his wrath on a bad day, or he has some hand where we are probably doomed anyway. What I would try to avoid is rebidding xxxx when I have any plausible excuse to avoid doing so and I think I have found an excuse. I would rebid 4♠ on xxxx xxx xxx Kxx, however. Can I rationalize that distinction? Yes.
Maybe, despite being aware of the bias that arises from seeing the hands, I am being influenced....there's no way to be certain of that once the cat is out of the bag. But that's what I think I'd do more times than not.
Edit: one of the many disadvantages of rambling posts is being beaten to the punch by those more concise than I am.
#20
Posted 2010-December-02, 08:01
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
My YouTube Channel

Help
