
Another long suited hand from Mini-Springold
#1
Posted 2013-August-11, 13:22

#2
Posted 2013-August-11, 15:33
#3
Posted 2013-August-11, 15:38
Fluffy, on 2013-August-11, 15:33, said:
Sorry being dense. I guess 1S-4NT-5C-6D would be to play.
This post has been edited by broze: 2013-August-11, 16:19
#5
Posted 2013-August-11, 16:29
I'll give up on slam in the name of preemption and a blind lead
#6
Posted 2013-August-12, 00:15
This type of auction came up when I was a Vugraph operator in Orlando, starting 1♦ - (P) - P - (2♦). West asked South if it was the Majors ('Yes'), while North told East "It's undiscussed, I'm taking it as just playing bridge". The auction went off the rails for E-W, but because of the misinformation the director changed the result (North tried saying that he would expect partner to cuebid with this kind of hand). It ended up not mattering in the end, but was interesting nontheless.
"Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself."
"One advantage of bad bidding is that you get practice at playing atrocious contracts."
-Alfred Sheinwold
#7
Posted 2013-August-12, 04:12
chasetb, on 2013-August-12, 00:15, said:
This type of auction came up when I was a Vugraph operator in Orlando, starting 1♦ - (P) - P - (2♦). West asked South if it was the Majors ('Yes'), while North told East "It's undiscussed, I'm taking it as just playing bridge". The auction went off the rails for E-W, but because of the misinformation the director changed the result (North tried saying that he would expect partner to cuebid with this kind of hand). It ended up not mattering in the end, but was interesting nontheless.
I can see your point but even that gives too much space- needs to be 3♥- I don't think I'd want to bypass 3NT- give partner a poor hand of ♥Qxx+ and ♣Qjx+ with nothing else of note and 3NT is a shoe in but no higher.
#8
Posted 2013-August-12, 09:57
do not see the benefit of anything other than 4n regular blackwood. We have
little defense so there is no hurry to consider something like x since p may
convert it when we are making 7.
Some number of hearts aims at such a tiny target its almost invisible
(p holding something like xxx QJx xxx QJxx or some such and worse
if asking for a hearty stop p may bid 3n with Qxx Axx xxx xxxx and his
lho leads a club for down some number opposite making 6.
There is little reason to worry about naming diamonds then pursuing slam
all p needs to do is cooperate with blackwood knowing we must have a
one suited hand to bid this way.
#9
Posted 2013-August-12, 10:01
#10
Posted 2013-August-12, 11:51
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#11
Posted 2013-August-14, 12:58
Phil, on 2013-August-12, 11:51, said:
Your partner would not bid 3NT, he would bid 4♣ pass/correct I suspect, or the opponents may well bid something over 3[ci] like 3♠ or 4♣.
#12
Posted 2013-August-14, 16:25
PhilKing, on 2013-August-12, 10:01, said:
hmm interesting point of view---what possible reason would I have for a 2n natural (I assume around 20 hcp?
I would find a double much easier to use there in the hope against hope p would want to leave it in.
IMO 2n serves a much better purpose there showing the minors rather than going out on a limb and forcing p
to choose at the 5 level. If I use 2n I let p choose at the 3 level and I can jump to 5 if I wish especially at
unfavorable.
4n ace asking allows 2n to work in an effective manner (as minors) and allows for ace asking when odd hands appear.
#13
Posted 2013-August-15, 05:57
gszes, on 2013-August-14, 16:25, said:
I think this is pretty standard rather than being a "point of view". 2NT in the balancing chair showing 18-19; a difficult hand to show if you start with double.
#14
Posted 2013-August-15, 09:03
If partner bids 3nt and opponents are silent I will bid 4♦, the over-rule of 3NT shows slam interest in diamonds, partner is forced to cue or bid 5♦ without a first round control.
if partner bids 3♠ (the usual denial of a stopper) I will bid 5d suggesting I am expecting to make or go very close. the usual bid for hands similar to my minimum above is 4♦ so I show extras.
With one partner, with a good hand but no stop in hearts they can cue a suit at the 4 level however this must be a hand prepared to play in game in my suit no matter which suit it is!
If they bid again in some way I just bid 5♦ (if I'm able too!)
#15
Posted 2013-August-15, 19:53
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#16
Posted 2013-August-15, 21:04
#17
Posted 2013-August-15, 22:16
gszes, on 2013-August-12, 09:57, said:
do not see the benefit of anything other than 4n regular blackwood. We have
little defense so there is no hurry to consider something like x since p may
convert it when we are making 7.
Some number of hearts aims at such a tiny target its almost invisible
(p holding something like xxx QJx xxx QJxx or some such and worse
if asking for a hearty stop p may bid 3n with Qxx Axx xxx xxxx and his
lho leads a club for down some number opposite making 6.
There is little reason to worry about naming diamonds then pursuing slam
all p needs to do is cooperate with blackwood knowing we must have a
one suited hand to bid this way.
I am camping with Richard and agh as well.
Uh...you don't have both minors, which is what 4NT shows for 99% of the bridge playing world.
#18
Posted 2013-August-15, 23:29
#19
Posted 2013-August-15, 23:58
hrothgar, on 2013-August-11, 16:29, said:
I'll give up on slam in the name of preemption and a blind lead
We have 18hcp, LHO has 11+, RHO 0-5. That leaves a lot of hcp unaccounted for, and we don't need many from partner to make slam ice cold. Meanwhile, I don't see many hands where the lead matters (except for the overtrick in 6♦).